Hi all,
I have done the RTG-DIR review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-10
(can be found
here<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/DYaj7jAcGIB_HxUIzNhZcdBQ8sw/>).
All the issues I have raised in my review have been resolved when the -11
revision of the draft has been posted, and I have posted my confirmation of
this
fact<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/eSIZ_CZdbX0rRwk1leC4L7Rft4Y/>.
After reading the DISCUSS, I have looked up the Gen-ART review, and I would
like to provide a couple of comments.
1. I agree with Paul (and noted this in my review as well) that "The draft
is written in a very dense way" specifically pointed to Section 5.1 that
"contains just the deltas between the mechanisms already defined in RFC 7117
and the mechanisms proposed in this draft" as an example of the dense style. I
have also noticed that "such style is quite valid to use" but "requires very
good understanding of the "previous art" in order to understand this draft".
At the same time I have said that "very good understanding of the "previous
art"" is probably unavoidable in any case regardless of the style - and in
this my position differs from that of Paul.
2. I do not think that the draft updates RFC 7117 because it clearly and
unequivocally (from my POV) states that it is only applicable to EVPN BUM
procedures while RFC 7117 is only applicable to VPLS. (The corresponding text
is actually quoted verbatim in Paul's review, but somehow is considered there
as further clouding things)
3. While I agree with Paul that the draft does not explicitly state in which
way it updates RFC 7432, this is pretty much clear since it defines 3 new types
of EVPN routes (on top of the types defined in RFC 7432 and some other
documents) and defines how these routes are to be used. Looking up Section 8
"IANA Considerations" should suffice IMHO
4. I also strongly disagree with Paul's position that this document should
be re-written as RFC 7117bis - because the applicability scope of these two
documents is mutually exclusive. As for making it RFC 7432 bis - the work on
such a
document<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-01>
has started, but it is in early stages. In particular, it does not address (as
of this moment) any of the issues that the draft under consideration addresses,
and I am not sure that simply including its content in a document that is
already 67 pages long would really contribute to readability of any of these
documents.
My comments above do not in any way replace the response of the authors
requested by Lars. But hopefully they will still be useful.
Regards,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert via Datatracker
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 2:15 PM
To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Cc: zzhang_i...@hotmail.com; bess-cha...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-upda...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [bess] Lars Eggert's Discuss on
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11: (with DISCUSS)
Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://clicktime.symantec.com/3ERNe1NyWXsQHVSUvQ6ZVv6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fblog%2Fhandling-iesg-ballot-positions%2F
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Xy99bcsTf6XQ864fThDyjC6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates%2F
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entering a DISCUSS to make sure the authors respond to Paul Kyzivat's Gen-ART
review
(https://clicktime.symantec.com/3JDNaatN3bgqjs6LpQVxS7i6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fgen-art%2Fg5QZK_1U6boqzG8FjuJWhGG74RI),
and so that the IESG can discuss that review and (hopefully) any responses to
it.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://clicktime.symantec.com/3AGkuPKSgGBrRRtordLC6Vg6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbess
Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of
Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or
proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure,
reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of
Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or
proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure,
reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
