Hi Carlos, Thanks for your review and comments. Please see inline for my responses.
On 8/7/17, 2:46 PM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro Review result: Has Issues Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro Review result: Has Nits (and one potential Issue) I am the OPS-DIR reviewer and in general I do not have operational concerns with this document. The main issue I have is in regards to the redefinition of the MSB of the Tunnel Type, and associated backwards/forward compatibility considerations. I note that RFC 7385 is Normatively referenced by a number of I-Ds: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7385/referencedby/ BUT draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree is not: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree/referencedby/ So would those former be pointing to old info? And what other Backwards Compat considerations are there? To maximize backward/forward compatibility, let's retain the value for "Experimental Use" and "Reserved" as before per [RFC7385] and reduce the range for Composite tunnel for this draft. So, the changes will be >From existing IANA assignments: 0x0C - 0xFA Unassigned 0xFB - 0xFE Experimental [RFC7385] 0xFF Reserved [RFC7385] To: 0x0C - 0x3F Unassigned 0x80 - 0xBF reserved for composite tunnel 0xD0 - 0xFA Unassigned 0xFB - 0xFE Experimental [RFC7385] 0xFF Reserved [RFC7385] Further, some nits and editorials for your consideration: The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) has defined a rooted-multipoint Ethernet service known as Ethernet Tree (E-Tree). A solution framework for supporting this service in MPLS networks is proposed in RFC7387 ("A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network"). Proposed? Or Described / Defined? OK, changed to "described" Same comment for the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Intro. Changed to "describes" This document makes use of the most significant bit of the scope governed by the IANA registry created by RFC7385, and hence updates RFC7385 accordingly. RFC 7385 does not mention a "scope". This really talks about the Tunnel Type. Please reword for unambiguous clarity. Changed it to "This document makes use of the most significant bit of the PMSI tunnel type governed by the IANA ..." 3.1 Known Unicast Traffic To support the above ingress filtering functionality, a new E-TREE Extended Community with a Leaf indication flag is introduced [section 5.2]. This new Extended Community MUST be advertised with MAC/IP Section 5.2 is not a referenced citation. Changed it to "[5.1]". Nice catch! Thanks. Similar issue with [5.1] at: In PBB-EVPN, the PE advertises a Root/Leaf indication along with each B-MAC Advertisement route, to indicate whether the associated B-MAC address corresponds to a Root or a Leaf site. Just like the EVPN case, the new E-TREE Extended Community defined in section [5.1] is advertised with each MAC Advertisement route. This paragraph refers to the correct section! 3.2 BUM Traffic Please expand to Broadcast, Unkonwn, Multicast. Done. When receiver ingress-replication label is needed, the high-order bit of the tunnel type field (Composite Tunnel bit) is set while the remaining low-order seven bits indicate the tunnel type as before. I believe it would be useful to depict the Composite Tunnel bit in Figure 5 as well... It's not only a 1-octet Type. I believe the description is clear in the text and adding additional diagram and text to describe the diagram would make it too verbose. Also, please note: ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 Changed it to RFC 8126. ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7387 That's OK. Thanks again for your review, Ali Thank you! Carlos.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
