Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-07

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 01:19:52 -0700

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
this document. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please consider these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive, and ask your AD for advice on how to deal with them.

Document: draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-07
Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand
Date: August 9, 2006
Summary: Ready, a few nits

This document makes me believe that someone who is expert in BGP and 
VPNs would understand it. I don't claim to understand it in detail, but 
what I do understand looks reasonable.

A few nits...

The "updates" section in the abstract is not marked "delete this when it 
becomes an RFC".

A terminology issue: The abstract and introduction uses the term "VPN 
member", which looks like it means something that is a member of a VPN. 
However, closer investigation reveals that the term means "VPN which is 
a member of <I'm not sure what>".

In particular, the sentence "the remote PEs will then identify the list 
of VPN members they have in common with the advertising PE" is hard to 
parse.

Consider using the term "member VPN" or simply "VPN" instead.

Tha IANA section actually doesn't say that IANA should assign these 
values - it just mentions the things that IANA should assign. The 
section will require rewriting to make sense when values are assigned 
and the RFC is published - consider using the format

  IANA has assigned extended community <TBD by IANA> used for Topology 
values for VR-based
  L3VPN solution

which makes it easier for the RFC Editor to make this section readable.

Otherwise, looks good to me.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art