Subject: [bess] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 03:24:28 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing blocking here, but some things to please consider (and chat with
me if you think it's needed):

Please expand "VRF" and "PE" on first use.

-- Section 2.1 --

   A router MAY accept a route whose ORIGINATOR_ID or NEXT_HOP value
   matches that of the receiving speaker if all of the following are
   true:

Just checking here:

1. The "MAY" means that even if all the following are true, the router
might still not accept the route -- it's optional.  Is that what's
intended?

2. This text says nothing about what happens if *not* all of the
following are true.  A router might still accept the route (or not).  Is
that what's intended?  Or is a "MUST NOT accept" meant to be implied in
that case?

   A route MUST never be accepted back into its source VRF, even if it
   carries one or more Route Targets (RTs) which match that VRF.

I think "MUST never be accepted" is a bit awkward, because one
immediately thinks of "MUST" as a positive command.  I suggest "A route
MUST NOT ever be accepted...."

-- Appendix A --
The title says "Local Extranet Application (non-informative)".  Do you
mean "non-normative" here?

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:59:03 -0000

Hi Barry,
Thanks for reading.
In line...

> Please expand "VRF" and "PE" on first use.
Ack

> might still not accept the route -- it's optional.  Is that what's

Yup.

> MUST NOT ever be accepted...."

Could do that if the authors don't  object.
I think we all thought is a bit obvious.

> mean "non-normative" here?

Ha! :-)

Adrian

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:02:21 +0100

>> might still not accept the route -- it's optional.  Is that what's

OK; kewl.

> I think we all thought is a bit obvious.

Sure, it's a really minor thing, just a personal preference for
wording.  I won't be the slightest bit miffed if you leave it as is.

Thanks for considering...

Barry