I support the publication of this draft. I have the following comments and suggested edits.
-- Technical comments Section 4.1 I find this statement confusing While "local-bias" MUST be supported along with GENEVE encapsulation, the use of the Ethernet option-TLV is RECOMMENDED to follow the same procedures used by EVPN MPLS. I'm not sure how it helps to carry an extra TLV when it is known that its absence or presence results in identical behavior. I also find the encoding confusing. Why is the Type=0, instead of using EVPN-OPTION with a length of 0x1 instead of 0x2? What does Type=0 indicate? Is this assigned by IANA? Section 6 What is inter-AS option B? Can we provide a reference? Section 8 Doesn't IANA also need to allocate a codepoint for the EVPN-OPTION type? -- Editorial comments Entire document - 3 of the references listed as drafts are now RFCs. Those should be fixed both in the reference section and in the text. - There are several uses of GENEVE and Geneve in the document. Recommend replacing GENEVE with Geneve, including in the abbreviations and terminology section. Section 1 Change This EVPN control plane extension will allow an NVE to express what Geneve option TLV types it is capable of receiving from, or sending to, over the Geneve tunnel with its peers. To This EVPN control plane extension will allow an NVE to express what Geneve option TLV types it is capable of receiving or sending over the Geneve tunnel with its peers. Section 4 Change This document adds an extension to the [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03#ref-I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve>] encapsulation that are relevant to the operation of EVPN. To This document adds an extension to the [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03#ref-I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve>] encapsulation that is relevant to the operation of EVPN. End Section 4.1 Change [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-overlay] describes when an ingress NVE uses ingress replication to flood unknown unicast traffic to the egress NVEs, the ingress NVE needs to indicate to the egress NVE that the Encapsulated packet is a BUM traffic type. To [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-overlay] describes when an ingress NVE uses ingress replication to flood unknown unicast traffic to the egress NVEs, the ingress NVE needs to indicate to the egress NVE that the Encapsulated packet is a BUM packet. Change For GENEVE, we need a bit to for this purpose. To For GENEVE, we need a bit for this purpose. Expand first use of AC and add to abbreviations and terminology. ecnapsulations -> encapsulations GENVE -> Geneve (There are 2 instances of this.) "20- bit MPLS label" -> "20-bit MPLS label" Add figure captions for the 2 figures showing the TLVs. Expand first use of ES and ESI and add to abbreviations and terminology. Change The ESI-label value is encoded in the high-order 20 bits of the Source-ESI field. To The ESI-label value is encoded in the high-order 20 bits of the Source-ID field. Change The egress NVEs that make use of ESIs in the data path because they have a local multi-homed ES or support [RFC8317 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8317>] SHOULD advertise their Ethernet A-D per-ES routes along with the Geneve tunnel sub-TLV and in addition to the ESI-label Extended Community. Remove "and". On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:02 PM <slitkows.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > This email starts a two-week working group last call for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc [1] > > > > Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please > indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC. > > > > This poll runs until the 12th October 2021. > > > > We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this > document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR > rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > > > If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document please > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from > all the authors and contributors. > > There are currently two IPR disclosures. > > > > In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, > per the BESS policy in [2]. > > > > Thank you, > > Matthew & Stephane > > > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc/ > > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
