Hi Linda,
On 3/21/23 8:10 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Paul,
Thank you very much for the review.
Please see below for the resolution to your comments.
The revision will be uploaded next Monday when the IETF submission opens.
Linda
I've included some followup comments inline below.
[snip]
ISSUE (MINOR)
The intended purpose of and audience for this document isn't clear. I
infer this is primarily intended to kick off and guide further normative
standards work, and hence the audience is other IETF participants. It
would be helpful to spell this out. The abstract notes things that are
out of scope. Clarifying the audience and purpose would also help in
determining scope.
[Linda] How about adding the following statement?
/The intent is primarily for guiding further standards work in the
Routing Area./
After rereading the relevant sections I think I was wrong to raise an
issue - you seem to have sufficiently explained the intent without
making any changes.
[snip]
* Section 3.2
Something is wrong with the grammar in:
"When those failure events happen, the Cloud DC GW which is visible to
clients are running fine."
It can be fixed by s/clients are/clients is/, if that is what you mean.
[Linda] Is the following statement more clear?
/When a site failure happens, the Cloud DC GW visible to clients is
running fine; therefore, the site failure is not detectable by the
Clients using BFD. /
Yes, that reads well.
[snip]
[Linda] Changed the statement to the following:
/Many applications have multiple instances instantiated in different
Cloud DCs. A commonly deployed solution has DNS server(s) responding to
an FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name) inquiry with an IP address of the
closest or lowest cost DC that can reach the instance. /
Sounds good.
[snip]
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
