Thanks john. Uploading version 14th which covers rest other Discuss comment. I would be addressing this one and send diff before publishing.
Mankamana From: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Date: Friday, October 22, 2021 at 7:32 AM To: Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, slitkows.i...@gmail.com <slitkows.i...@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Ben, Thanks for your reply. Mankamana said that he will make the changes you suggested and re-publish the draft today. Yours Irrespectively, John Juniper Business Use Only > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:08 PM > To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> > Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org; > bess-cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; slitkows.i...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy- > 13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi John, > > Thanks for helping clarify. Also inline. > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 06:35:43PM +0000, John E Drake wrote: > > Ben, > > > > Comments inline. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 8:49 PM > > > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > > > Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org; > > > bess-cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; slitkows.i...@gmail.com > > > Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy- > 13: > > > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > > > > > > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > > > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-13: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-> > > > ballot- > > > positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO- > > > > gk!RdAYIQJzeV4Zo3HeoU6yFlhxJGC56JOC41jC9lqSbJyT7Gw448bi3rPSRrxQJ1U$ > > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT > positions. > > > > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-i<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-i> > > > etf-bess- > > > evpn-igmp-mld-proxy/__;!!NEt6yMaO- > > > > gk!RdAYIQJzeV4Zo3HeoU6yFlhxJGC56JOC41jC9lqSbJyT7Gw448bi3rPSbOB2k3E$ > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > > > DISCUSS: > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > > > > > > (1) Apparently each PE is supposed to store version flags for each > > > other PE in the EVI (I guess on a per-route basis?), but this is > > > mentioned just once, in passing, in step 2 of the Leave Group procedures > > > in > §4.1.2. > > > > [JD] The first hop PE keeps track of which IGMP or MLD versions are active > > on > the ESes to which it is attached and announces this via the BGP SMET route. > > Yes. Should this statement (or something like it) be in the document itself? > (Where?) > > > > Similarly, §6.1 defines, somewhat in passing, some "local IGMP > > > Membership Request (x,G) state" that must be maintained in some cases
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
