Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 13:35:52 +0100

Authors,

I have conducted my usual AD review of your draft having received a
publication request. The purpose of the review is to catch significant
issues before the I-D advances to IETF last call and IESG evaluation.

This document seems fine to me and I only have three nits. I will start
the IETF last call and raise these nits as last call comments and you can
address them with any other comments you receive.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

===

Section 2.2 has

   An E-Tree service has one or more Root ACs and many Leaf ACs.

I suggest that "many" is not a necessary part of the definition 
although it may be probable in deployments. For the definition I think
you need:

   An E-Tree service has one or more Root ACs and at least one Leaf AC.

---

Section 2.3.1 para 2

s/fame/frame/

---

Figure 1 shows two notations "E-Tree". The associated arrows do not 
make it clear what is the extent of the E-tree since the top one and 
the bottom one show different edge points. Can you tidy that up?

---

From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 14:47:55 +0000

Hi Adrian,

===

Section 2.2 has

I suggest that "many" is not a necessary part of the definition although it may be probable in deployments. For the definition I think you need:

   An E-Tree service has one or more Root ACs and at least one Leaf AC.
[Lucy] Since one key of E-tree service is prohibiting the communication between leaf ACs. Therefore, one leaf AC case does not make sense. How about: An E-Tree service has one or more Root ACs and at least two Leaf ACs. 

---

Section 2.3.1 para 2

s/fame/frame/
[Lucy] will change it. Thanks.

---

Figure 1 shows two notations "E-Tree". The associated arrows do not make it clear what is the extent of the E-tree since the top one and the bottom one show different edge points. Can you tidy that up?
[Lucy] I'll fix it.

Regards,
Lucy

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:35:31 +0100

Hi Lucy,

>> I suggest that "many" is not a necessary part of the definition although it
may be
>> probable in deployments. For the definition I think you need:
>> 
> [Lucy] Since one key of E-tree service is prohibiting the communication
between
> leaf ACs. Therefore, one leaf AC case does not make sense. How about: An E-
> Tree service has one or more Root ACs and at least two Leaf ACs.

So, if I buy an E-tree service from my service provider to support video
distribution, and I have two leaf nodes, and one leaf node goes away, you are
saying that the service I have bought suddenly becomes an E-LAN service?

But, in principle that text is fine by me.

>> Figure 1 shows two notations "E-Tree". The associated arrows do not make it
>> clear what is the extent of the E-tree since the top one and the bottom one
show
>> different edge points. Can you tidy that up?
>
> [Lucy] I'll fix it.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:59:06 +0000

[Lucy] Hi Adrian,

>> although it
may be
between
> leaf ACs. Therefore, one leaf AC case does not make sense. How about: 
> An E- Tree service has one or more Root ACs and at least two Leaf ACs.

So, if I buy an E-tree service from my service provider to support video distribution, and I have two leaf nodes, and one leaf node goes away, you are saying that the service I have bought suddenly becomes an E-LAN service?
[Lucy] In an E-LAN service, all ACs have root role. If an AC has leaf role, the service is not an E-LAN service. I see this example as an E-Tree service.

But, in principle that text is fine by me.
[Lucy] Thanks. I'll use that text.

Lucy

---

From: "Bitar, Nabil N" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:11:10 -0400

Hi Lucy,
Just to be clear for me, are you agreeing with the text that Adrian
suggested on the definition of the E-tree service?

Thanks,
Nabil

On 7/1/14 12:59 PM, "Lucy yong" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>distribution, and I have two leaf nodes, and one leaf node goes away, you
>are saying that the service I have bought suddenly becomes an E-LAN
>service?
>[Lucy] In an E-LAN service, all ACs have root role. If an AC has leaf
>role, the service is not an E-LAN service. I see this example as an
>E-Tree service.
>