2nd WG LC shepherd's report - G01 items - Must Fix before Publication Editorial items

G1-01- Section 1, paragraph 6,

Old text:/ For clarity, only some tunneling technologies are detailed in this document. For example, MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) examples are described. /

New text:/ For clarity, only some tunneling technologies are detailed in this document. In many examples only MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) examples are described. /

Status: Discuss due to Keyur's comment had you amend this text. Please see my English correction.

G1-02, Section 4.2, paragraph 3

Old text:/ These routes are used to resolve overlay routes, including BGP CT, which may be further readvertised to adjacent domains to extend these tunnels./

What needs clarification: What is being readvertised?

G1-03, Section 7.2, create stronger link between two paragraphs

Old text:/Alternatively, the ingress node of the tunnel, which is also an ASBR/ABR in tunnel's home domain, may originate the BGP CT route for the tunnel destination with NLRI RD:EP, attaching a Transport Class Route Target that identifies the Transport Class. This BGP CT route is advertised to EBGP peers and IBGP peers in neighboring domains.

  This route SHOULD NOT be advertised to the IBGP core that contains
  the tunnel.  This may be implemented by mechanisms such as policy
  configuration.  The impact of not prohibiting such advertisements
  is outside the scope of this document. /

Option 1: merge 2 paragraphs Option 2: use the word "originated to link" New text:/ Alternatively, the ingress node of the tunnel, which is also an ASBR/ABR in tunnel's home domain, may originate the BGP CT route for the tunnel destination with NLRI RD:EP, attaching a Transport Class Route Target that identifies the Transport Class. This BGP originated CT route is advertised to EBGP peers and IBGP peers in neighboring domains.

 This originated route SHOULD NOT be advertised to the IBGP core that contains
  the tunnel.  This may be implemented by mechanisms such as policy
  configuration.  The impact of not prohibiting such advertisements
  is outside the scope of this document. /

G1-04, Section 7.3., paragraph 5,

Old text:/The received BGP CT route MUST be added to the TRDB corresponding to the Transport Class "C1", if provisioned locally. /

What needs clarification: What is being provisioned in this sentence.

G1-06: Section 7.13, paragraph 2

Old text:/ As noted in this document, BGP CT route update for SRv6 include attribute containing SRv6 SID information, with Transposition scheme disabled./

New text:/ As noted in this document, BGP CT route update for SRv6 includes a BGP attribute containing SRv6 SID information with Transposition scheme disabled (e.g. Prefix SID [RFC9252]). /

G1-07, Swadesh's comment on Section 10.3

I cannot find where you are annotating the table in figure 7 to address the in Swadesh's notes. On this point, we need to discuss in person.

G1-08, Section 11.2.2, paragraphs and 9

Please add the qualifier color to the following text:

Paragraph 1: Old text:/ This rewrite helps to map one domain's namespace to another./

New text: / This rewrite helps to map one color domain's namespace to another color domain./

Paragraph 9: Old text:/ Coordinating Transport Class RT between two adjacent domains at a time is easier than coordinating service layer colors deployed in a global mesh of non-adjacent domains. This basically allows localizing the problem to a pair of adjacent domains and solving it./

New text:/ Coordinating Transport Class RT between two adjacent color domains at a time is easier than coordinating service layer colors deployed in a global mesh of non-adjacent color domains. This basically allows localizing the problem to a pair of adjacent color domains and solving it./

Problem: This text needs to be very careful to indicate color domains.

G1-09, Section 11.2.3.2, paragraph 6, starting with ASBR22.

Problem: Where is the Color 102 mentioned? Is it missing in this paragraph?

ietf-wg-idr / draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct