Subject: AD review and progressing: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-10

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 17:33:26 -0400

First, I would like to thank Jon, Petr, and Ariff for their work on this
document.  I think it will be very useful for many who are looking at
data-center designs.

Second, I'd like to thank RTGWG for adopting this draft and working to
improve it.  I think it is a better document than it would have been if I
had instead AD-sponsored it.

Finally, I've done my AD review and have no significant comments that
require addressing.  I am forwarding this draft for IETF Last Call and it
is on the telechat for June 16.  I do apologize for the delay; I am a bit
backlogged on drafts.

One minor suggestion is that in Section 8.3, it might be useful to refer to
RFC 5837, which, if implemented, would allow a way to indicate the local
interface an ICMP message was received on while doing IP address
masquerading.   I believe it would solve the issue of "hiding the address
of the entry point into the device".

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: Ariff Premji <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:37:38 -0700

Thank you Alia and the entire RTGWG team for the support.

> On May 23, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> First, I would like to thank Jon, Petr, and Ariff for their work on this document.  I think it will be very useful for many who are looking at data-center designs.
> 
> Second, I'd like to thank RTGWG for adopting this draft and working to improve it.  I think it is a better document than it would have been if I had instead AD-sponsored it.
> 
> Finally, I've done my AD review and have no significant comments that require addressing.  I am forwarding this draft for IETF Last Call and it is on the telechat for June 16.  I do apologize for the delay; I am a bit backlogged on drafts.
> 
> One minor suggestion is that in Section 8.3, it might be useful to refer to RFC 5837, which, if implemented, would allow a way to indicate the local interface an ICMP message was received on while doing IP address masquerading.   I believe it would solve the issue of "hiding the address of the entry point into the device".
> 
> Thanks,
> Alia
> 
>

---

From: Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 22:49:34 -0400

> of the entry point into the device".

Alia -

Thanks for your review.  About a week before the telechat we will submit
an updated version addressing any other comments received to date
including from some of the directorate reviews.  Your suggestion seems
like a good fit to address the issue in the last paragraph of 8.3 (if it
were available) so we will include a reference to it in that revision.

-Jon