Dear RFC-Editor,
Thanks you for your recommendations, please refer to my comments inline marked
with “Ali>” . Once they are incorporated, I will be happy to approve it.
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 2:41 PM
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>, Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)
<pbris...@cisco.com>, utt...@att.com <utt...@att.com>, jdr...@juniper.net
<jdr...@juniper.net>, sbout...@ciena.com <sbout...@ciena.com>,
jorge.raba...@nokia.com <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>
Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, bess-...@ietf.org
<bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>,
slitkows.i...@gmail.com <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>,
gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9744 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12> for your
review
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
Style Guide"). Please review.
Original:
EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross-Connect Service
Current:
EVPN Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) Flexible Cross-Connect (FXC)
Service
-->
Ali> That’ fine.
2) <!-- [rfced] We're having trouble understanding "can designate on" in the
text below. Should this be updated to "can designate"?
Original:
[RFC8214] describes a solution to deliver P2P services using BGP
constructs defined in [RFC7432]. It delivers this P2P service
between a pair of Attachment Circuits (ACs), where an AC can
designate on a PE, a port, a VLAN on a port, or a group of VLANs on a
port.
Perhaps:
[RFC8214] describes a solution to deliver P2P services using BGP
constructs defined in [RFC7432]. It delivers this P2P service
between a pair of Attachment Circuits (ACs), where an AC can
designate a PE, a port, a VLAN on a port, or a group of VLANs on a
port.
-->
Ali> It should be changed to “…, where an AC on a PE can represent a port, a
VLAN on a port, or a group of VLANs on a port.”
3) <!--[rfced] To have a 1:1 matchup between the following abbreviations
and their expansions, may we update as follows?
Original:
Ethernet A-D: Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) per EVI and Ethernet A-D
per ESI routes, as defined in [RFC7432] and [RFC8214].
...
PE: Provider Edge device
...
VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table
...
IP-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for IP lookup
...
MAC-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for MAC lookup
...
VID-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for Normalized VID lookup
Perhaps:
Ethernet A-D: Ethernet Auto-Discovery (per EVI and per ESI routes,
as defined in [RFC7432] and [RFC8214])
Ali> also use “or” instead of “and”: “ Ethernet A-D: Ethernet Auto-Discovery
(per EVI or per ESI routes, as defined in [RFC7432] and [RFC8214])”
...
PE: Provider Edge
...
VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding
...
IP-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding for IP lookup
MAC-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding for MAC lookup
VID-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding for normalized VID lookup
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] We were unable to find exactly "12-bit VPWS service instance
identifiers" in [RFC8214]. We did find the following in Section 3 of [RFC8214]:
The VPWS service instance identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value,
and when a 24-bit value is used, it MUST be right-aligned.
For a more accurate citation, may we update to something like the following?
Current:
As stated in [RFC8214], 12-bit and 24-bit VPWS service instance identifiers
representing normalized VIDs MUST be right-aligned.
Perhaps:
24-bit VPWS service instance identifiers [RFC8214] as well as 12-bit
VPWS service instance identifiers representing normalized VIDs MUST
be right-aligned.
-->
Ali> That’s fine.
5) <!--[rfced] To clarify the numbered list, we have updated this sentence
in Section 3.2. Please review and ensure that the intended meaning has
not changed. Note that we have made a similar update to a sentence in
Section 3.3.
Original:
Additionally, this route
is sent with the EVPN Layer-2 Extended Community defined in
Section 3.1 of [RFC8214] with two new flags (outlined in Section 4)
that indicate: 1) this VPWS service tunnel is for the default
Flexible Cross-Connect, and 2) the normalized VID type (single versus
double).
Current:
Additionally, this route
is sent with the EVPN Layer 2 Extended Community defined in
Section 3.1 of [RFC8214] with two new flags (outlined in Section 4)
that indicate: 1) this VPWS service tunnel for the default
Flexible Cross-Connect and 2) the normalized VID type (single versus
double).
-->
Ali> Please change it to: “… 1) the VPW service tunnel (set to default
Flexible Cross-Connect) and 2) the normalized VID type (set to normalized
single-VID or double-VID)”
6) <!--[rfced] Please note that a slash (/) can mean "and", "or", or "and/or".
We have updated it to "and" in the text below for clarity. Please review
and let us know if any further updates are needed.
Original:
In this mode of operation, similar to the default FXC mode described
in Section 3.2, many normalized VIDs representing ACs across several
Ethernet Segments/interfaces are multiplexed into a single EVPN VPWS
service tunnel.
Current:
In this mode of operation, similar to the default FXC mode described
in Section 3.2, many normalized VIDs representing ACs across several
Ethernet Segments and interfaces are multiplexed into a single EVPN VPWS
service tunnel.
-->
Ali> That’s fine.
7) <!--[rfced] May we remove "service" after "FXC" in the following sentence?
Additionally, please note that we have numbered the items listed to
improve readability.
Original:
However, only two VPWS
Service Tunnels are required: VPWS Service Tunnel 1 (sv.T1) between
PE1's FXC service and PE3's FXC, and VPWS Service Tunnel 2 (sv.T2)
between PE2's FXC and PE3's FXC.
Perhaps:
However, only two VPWS
Service Tunnels are required: 1) VPWS Service Tunnel 1 (sv.T1) between
PE1's FXC and PE3's FXC and 2) VPWS Service Tunnel 2 (sv.T2)
between PE2's FXC and PE3's FXC.
-->
Ali> That’s fine.
8) <!--[rfced] May we update the following acronyms and their expansions
to better reflect the text in RFC 5885?
Original:
The failure detection of an EVPN VPWS service can be performed via
OAM mechanisms such as VCCV-BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification,
[RFC5885]) and upon such failure detection, the switch over procedure
to the backup S-PE is the same as the one described above.
Perhaps:
The failure detection of an EVPN VPWS service can be performed via
OAM mechanisms such as Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
for the pesudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
[RFC5885], and upon such failure detection, the switch over procedure
to the backup S-PE is the same as the one described above.
-->
Ali> That’s fine.
9) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
A) To match usage in RFC 8214, may we update the following terms to the
format on the right?
single-active > Single-Active
all-active > All-Active
EVPN VPWS > EVPN-VPWS
Ethernet A-D per EVI route > Ethernet A-D per-EVI route
Ethernet A-D per ES route > Ethernet A-D per-ES route
VLAN-bundle > VLAN bundle
Ali> Please do so.
B) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
inconsistently. May we update them to the format on the right?
Normalized VID > normalized VID
VLAN-signaled flexible cross-connect > VLAN-signaled FXC
VLAN-signaled Flexible Cross-Connect > VLAN-signaled FXC
Ali> Please do so.
C) Since RFC 8214 uses "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community", should
the following terms be update to match? We ask because of the possible
addition of "Attributes".
EVPN Layer 2 Extended Community (Sections 3.2 and 3.3)
EVPN Layer 2 attribute extended community (Section 4)
-->
Ali> Please update to match RFC 8214.
10) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations
A) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
Autonomous System (AS)
Switching Provider Edge (S-PE)
Ali> Please change S-PE to PE. I don’t think you need to expand PE as it has
been used many times previously.
B) Both the expansion and the acronym for Ethernet Segment (ES) are used
throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion upon
first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document for consistency?
Ali> Please do so.
C) We note that "FXC" appears to be expanded in different ways throughout
the document. May we update all these instances to be "Flexible Cross-Connect"
for consistency?
Flexible Xconnect
Flexible Cross Connect
Flexible Cross-Connect
Ali> Please do so.
D) We note that "VCCV" is expaned in two different ways in this document.
Please review and let us know which version should be updated for
consistency.
Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification
Virtual Circuit Connection Verification
-->
Ali> The top one – ie., Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification
11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
For example, please consider whether the following should be updated:
black hole
block-holed
-->
Ali> I would prefer “black hole” and “black holed”
Regards,
Ali
Thank you.
RFC Editor/st/ap
On Feb 26, 2025, at 2:29 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/02/26
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9744
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9744 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12)
Title : EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross-Connect Service
Author(s) : A. Sajassi, P. Brissette, J. Uttaro, J. Drake, S. Boutros,
J. Rabadan
WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Stephane Litkowski, Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
