Hi Bruno, Many thanks for the review comments. We have revised the draft addressing your comments.
More inline. Thanks, Neeraj On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:20 AM <bruno.decra...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Stéphane, authors, > > > > I have not followed the discussions on this document, but I’ll nonetheless > raise one point regarding the bandwidth community (better safe than > sorry). > > - why has [BGP-LINK-BW] been moved to informational reference while its > reading seem mandatory? > [NM]: There was a leftover reference to this in one of the sections that has been fixed now to use new EVPN EC. With this, reference to [BGP-LINK-BW] is purely informational (as was intended). > - A new EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community is defined, but I could not > find its specification. I guess that this is the same format as > [BGP-LINK-BW] but transitive. Could this be explicitly stated? > [NM]: clarified in section 4. > - [BGP-LINK-BW] advertises the bandwidth in unit of bytes (not bits!) per > second. Could the unit of the new EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community be > also clearly spelled out? Especially give the history on this (cf below). > Also in order to avoid misleading the readers could the examples use the > correct unit (vs bits per seconds as writen) > [NM]: done. > - 10 years ago or so, I had raised a similar point (distinction between > bits and bytes) on [BGP-LINK-BW] in the IDR WG. And it turned out that 1 > major implementation had implemented and deployed “bytes per second” as per > the spec, while another implementation had implemented and deployed “bits > per second” which is the typical unit of link bandwidth. Given the > deployments, none was willing to change its implementation as it would be a > non-backward compatible change with themselves. What’s the status on this? > Could we have an implementation status on this? > [NM]: I don't have this information. Perhaps someone else could comment. > > > Thanks > > Regards, > > --Bruno > > > > > > *From**:* BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of * > slitkows.i...@gmail.com > *Sent:* Monday, May 3, 2021 9:21 AM > *To:* bess@ietf.org > *Subject:* [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb > > > > Hi WG, > > > > > > We got final updates from authors on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb. > > > > I'm opening a new short Working Group Last Call (to be closed on 5/10) to > > get any last comments before moving to the next step. > > However, the document having normative references to EVPN PREF DF, and > PER-MCAST-FLOW-DF, the draft will not be sent to IESG until these drafts are > ready. > > > > Feel free to send comments to the list before next Monday. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Stephane > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/ > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
