Subject: [bess] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:31:35 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial suggestions:

Summary: In general the authors provide dense English text to describe
this rules.   In general the English text contains valid complex
sentences.  However, a few things should be suggested:

1)      PTA – define it in a definition section or spell out the
abbreviation

2)      Phrases like  “the RT RT-R” become overly dense.  Use “Route
Target RT-R”.

3)      Breaking up section 6.2.1 – with subjection and subtitles would
make it more readable,

4)      P. 36 second paragraph.  The reason for the “MUST” in 1st full
paragraph is a bit vague.  It seems logical, but the reasoning is just
vague in the text.

5)      paragraph 2 in page 47 (section 7.3.1) is awkward, please reword.

6)      Paragraph 5 in page 47 (section 7.3.1) – does not explain why the
condition should hold.  The authors have done this in eac other case, so
it seems inconsistent.

7)      Page 53 – section 7.4.5 paragraph 3  “VRF route Import EC” –
please spell out first usage and give abbreviation (VRF Route Import
Extended Community (EC).