kalirajv
commented
4 months ago @jhaas-pfrc , @suehares
I've incorporated comments from Jeff.
- Accepted most changes as-is in the merge request, with minor post edits.
- Below are responses inline to the 'JMH' comments. Please go thru the changes and we can discuss on call if required.
KV> Added definitions.
KV> No. The text describes a Transport Class, what attributes it contains, and relationship with other objects. KV> It also describes how a Transport Class ID is chosen, when deploying Tansport Classes in a network.
KV> It is defined. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-23.html#section-13.4
KV> Yes, basically - conservative sender, and liberal receiver procedures. KV> As error handling behavior, we need to specify how a receiver acts if non-trans TCRT is received.
KV> Attempted to clarify text, removed a line that may be redundant and causing confusion. KV> Please take a look and we can discuss.
KV> It will not be installed in any TRDB. Clarified text in 7.3, 7.8 to clearly state this.
KV> Clarified text in Sec 6.4 . Changed it to: "following mechanisms similar to RFC 4364 procedures".
KV> The 4364 mechanisms relating to RT import/export are applicable. This text notes that KV> those mechanisms are applied using Transport Class Route Target. KV> Reworded text to clarify this, inline with previous comment above.
Thanks Kaliraj
Review comments on draft-23. Some general ones are: Reduce the amount of Latin abbreviations, or corrected its use where appropriate. Removed redundant references to afi/safi in locations where the context was already clear. Fixed missing definite articles in the text.
I also flagged a set of issues in the XML as "XXX JMH" that should either be resolved as part of review, or issues opened to track if they're not addressed in this pass.