Hi, Here is my last review (as WG chair) of the draft, I have also requested a GEN-ART review.
Abstract: Use "RFC7432" as a plain text reference and not as a link (xml xtarget) in the abstract. Introduction: s/QOS/QoS/ I think this sentence is useless in the text as previous one already mentions the same: "A new type of load-balancing mode, Port-Active redundancy, is defined. " Need to expand MC-LAG on first use Don't you need to provide an informative reference for LACP ? you may need to expand it on first use. Also don't need to say "LACP protocol" , but just say "LACP", P=protocol. s/aca tive/active Section 2: Refer to LACP and expansion should be intro, not here. s/must synchronize... data among them/ must synchronize... data between them/ Not able to parse this properly: "as are LAG misconfiguration and miswiring detection across peering PEs." Section 3.1: s/QOS/QoS Expand DF abbrev (first use) Section 3.2: I think the term "Peering PEs" is unclear and may need a better wording. On Bullet d., it would be worth using some normative language regarding the usage of DF election. Bullet f. first sentence should use normative language IMO. "SHOULD by default implement" ? or MUST ? Should bullet g. use normative language ? Would it be a MAY (optional) or SHOULD (if highly recommended) ? Section 4: s/ new Port Mode Load-Balancing capability/ new Port Mode Load-Balancing capability bit Section 4.4: Add reference to pref-df-draft Section 4.5: Add reference to RFC8584
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
