Hi Acee and Chongfeng, Yes, the latest version has addressed my comments. Thank you very much. The review can be closed.
B.R. Jia -----邮件原件----- 发件人: rtg-dir [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Acee Lindem 发送时间: 2024年1月24日 3:16 收件人: Hejia (Jia) <[email protected]> 抄送: Chongfeng Xie <[email protected]>; Routing Directorate <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all <[email protected]>; last-call <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> 主题: Re: [RTG-DIR] [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 Hi Chongfeng, Jia, I believe that version -06 had the changes to align with the TEAS terminology - correct? This review is closed. Thanks, Acee > On Dec 14, 2023, at 2:29 AM, Hejia (Jia) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Chongfeng, > Thanks for your reply. Your reply looks reasonable. > B.R. > Jia > 发件人: Chongfeng Xie [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2023年12月12日 13:14 > 收件人: Hejia (Jia) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > 抄送: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all > <[email protected]>; last-call > <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> > 主题: Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 > Hi Jia, > Thanks for the review comments. > I see your major comment is about the terminology alignment, as replied to > Daniele, we will follow the decision in TEAS to update the terminologies in > next revision. > Please see some replies to the minor issues inline: > From: He Jia via Datatracker > Date: 2023-12-11 16:09 > To: [email protected] > CC: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all; last-call; lsr > Subject: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 > Reviewer: He Jia > Review result: Not Ready > Hello, > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this > draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or > routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG > review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to > provide assistance to the Routing ADs. > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, > it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other > IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them > through discussion or by updating the draft. > Document: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 > Reviewer: Jia He > Review Date: December 10, 2023 > IETF LC End Date: date-if-known > Intended Status: Informational > Summary: > I have read the review comments from Daniele about the concept of > enhanced VPN, and the relationship with other existing terms. I agree > with his suggestion to follow the discussion and align the draft with > the output. In addition, some minor issues and also nits are found out > as follows and should be considered prior to publication. > Minor Issues: > 1、In Section 1, it is said "Segment Identifiers (SIDs) can be used to > represent both the topological instructions and the set of network > resources allocated by network nodes to a VTN." Is it "allocated by > network nodes" or "allocated to network nodes"? If it is "network > resources allocated by network nodes", why not "allocated by > centralized controllers" as well? If it is "network resources > allocated to network nodes" which are assocated with a VTN, why not " > allocated to network links" as well? Is there any special consideration by > saying "network nodes" only here? > [Chongfeng]： The description is a little bit confusing, actually it should > be "network resources of the network nodes and links which are allocated to a > VTN/NRP". We will update it in next revision. > 2、In Section 4, "For SRv6 data plane, the SRv6 SIDs associated > with the same VTN can be used together to build SRv6 paths with the > topological and resource constraints of the VTN taken into consideration." Is > "SRv6 Locator" missing? > [Chongfeng] SRv6 Locator is the covering prefix part of the SRv6 SIDs. In > SRv6 segment list, the SRv6 SIDs are used to indicate the forwarding path and > the set of resources used for packet processing. So the description is > correct. > Nits: > 1、Section 2, TLV 223 (MT IS Neighbor Attribute) is defined in RFC > 5311, which is not referenced in the draft. 2、Section 1, Paragraph 3, > last sentence, s/...need to be distributed using control plane/...need > to be distributed using a control plane 3、Section 2, Paragraph 1, last > sentecne, s/MT-ID could be used as the identifier of VTN in control > plane./MT-ID could be used as the identifier of VTN in the control > plane. 4、Section 2, "IS-IS Multi-Topology [RFC5120]" and "IS-IS > Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) [RFC5120]" are both used in the draft. It is > suggested to keep consistent throughout the draft. > [Chongfeng] Thanks for catching the nits, we will resolve them in next > revision. > Best regards, > Chongfeng > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
