Hello Med,
Thanks for the review. We have had indeed contradictory comments, which have let us include a lot of what you are proposing to remove from the draft. Having said that, many of your edits are to the point and we will change them in the next version. We’ll make them, and we’ll probably iterate over them. Thanks a lot. As you can see, this draft depends on the TLV and TLV e-bit draft, and content was flowing among them. After modifying them constantly, we had decided to let the path marking be stable until the other 2 are more advanced in the standardization process and then trim all that is left behind in the others. That’s why you didn’t see the g-bit there yet, and also why we left the enterprise part. I guess we can revisit that now, if you consider that the other will not change drastically at their stage. A couple of questions; What do you mean by removing the bitmask, you mean removing the bit definitions from the draft? Also, what do you mean by bit offset in the review document? Thanks a lot, Camilo From: <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> Date: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 05:47 To: "draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org> Cc: "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02 Resent from: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent to: <cam...@ntt.net>, <guyu...@huawei.com>, <pa...@ntt.net>, <pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr>, <thomas.g...@swisscom.com> Resent date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 02:47:41 -0800 (PST) Hi Camilo, Paolo, Pierre, Yunan, and Thomas, FWIW, please find a review of this document at: pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02-rev%20Med.pdf doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/refs/heads/master/2025/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02-rev%20Med.doc Overall, I think that the spec can be simplified. I don’t see the need to have the enterprise TLV included here. There are some few issues with encoding and, again, there is a room to simplify (e.g., avoid the bitmask). I wouldn’t be surprised if you received contradictory comments as the doc is out there since 2019 :-) Aah, do you really need to have a normative dependency on a spec that was expired since 2012? I would avoid that by having these parts self-contained. Also, please update the terminology to be aligned with RFC 4271. Thank you. Cheers, Med ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- grow@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to grow-le...@ietf.org
