Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06
review-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06-rtgdir-early-peng-2022-10-25-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 23)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-10-31
Requested 2022-10-12
Requested by Matthew Bocci
Authors Linda Dunbar , Ali Sajassi , John Drake , Basil Najem , Susan Hares
I-D last updated 2023-01-29
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -20 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -16 by Juan-Carlos Zúñiga (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -15 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Shuping Peng (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Shuping Peng
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/UkWp81AOVF7RjYMGEG0KgfZP0DU
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 23)
Result Ready
Completed 2023-01-29
review-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06-rtgdir-early-peng-2022-10-25-01
ShuPing,

Thank you very much for the explanation to your comments.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/  has changes
to reflect the suggestions from you.

Can you please change the State of the RTGdir review to READY?

All your comments have been addressed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 7:49 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage.all@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06

Hi Linda,

Please find in line below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:linda.dunbar@futurewei.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 12:56 PM
> To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@huawei.com>;
> rtg-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage.all@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06
>
>
> Shuping,
>
> Thank you very much for the review. Sorry for the late response.
>
> Please see below of the changes to address your comments.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shuping Peng via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 2:36 AM
> To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06
>
> Reviewer: Shuping Peng
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> Hello
>
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata
> %2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8daaf0e46a9e4697fe55
> 08db00d1d036%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638104673369
> 564690%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJ
> BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q%2FSTltuwczV3O2Wu2%
> 2Bw%2Ffl21cMWmBxPaGSsOMoRNqv4%3D&reserved=0
> tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06&am
> p;data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C288cea29b54f48d7
> cb5f08dab65b923e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C
> 638022801675645042%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
> MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C
> %7C&amp;sdata=kQVcmoPK9mBaEC6m6vVAv%2BFGR9NpmiOMWhccvGqPJ
> bY%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for
> publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time
> during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose
> of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached.
>
> As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the
> review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published.
> Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call
comments. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrac. >
t%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8daaf0e46a9e4697fe5 >
508db00d1d036%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C63810467336 >
9564690%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC >
JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fc5FfMDPJNm72XPCQaT >
BslRpCNs9%2F0aocKE28LbMIjw%3D&reserved=0 >
ools.ietf.org%2Farea%2Frtg%2Ftrac%2Fwiki%2FRtgDir&amp;data=05%7C01 >
%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C288cea29b54f48d7cb5f08dab65b92 >
3e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6380228016756 >
45042%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l >
uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata >
=ZGwIcNO6bxB2d97r%2F0LUB5HRku8iSb%2FU5klg8SXRK9k%3D&amp;reser > ved=0 > >
Document: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06.txt > Reviewer: Shuping Peng >
Review Date: 25-Oct-22 > Intended Status: Informational > > Summary: > > This
document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > should be
considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. > > Comments: > > 3.1.3 >  
"The SD-WAN Traffic Segmentation is enabled on a single SD-WAN > Service to a >
  single >    subscriber." Here the word "subscriber" is used for the first
time. More >    associations with the context or more explanations would be >
appreciated. > [Linda] Good point. This sentence is removed as the information
is > duplicated. > > 5.2 >    UPDATE #1b for Route Route 12.1.1.x/24: >      -
MP-NLRI Path Attribute: >          12.1.1.x/24 >          Nexthop: 2.2.2.2
(C-PE2) >      - Encapsulation Extended Community: Type= SDWAN-Hybrid >      -
Color Extended Community: YELLOW > > Should the Type be "MPLS" instead of
"SDWAN-Hybrid" here since it is > mentioned above that "...suppose that Route
10.1.x.x/16 can be carried > by either MPLS or IPsec and Route 12.1.1.x/24 can
only be carried by MPLS..."? > > Nits: > 1. SDWAN or SD-WAN? > [Linda] SDWAN is
same as SD-WAN. Added it to the definition section. > > 2. page 15, s/for the
Node Loopback address:/for the Node Loopback > address. > [Linda] what do you
mean?

":" -> "."

>
> 3. page 17, 18, s/Type, Tunneltype, Tunnel-type/TYPE?
> [Linda] what do you mean?

Could these various formats be simply unified as "TYPE"?

Best regards,
Shuping

>
> Thank you very much
> Linda