Thanks Rishabh.
From: Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 4:48 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [bess] Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp Stephane, I prefer the second option i.e. "Controller/PCE". However it maybe cumbersome to read this frequently in the documents, so I think we should use "Controller" and describe PCE as an example. I will edit both of the drafts for this change. Regards, Rishabh On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:33 AM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: (Adding PIM chairs so they are informed) Hi Rishabh, I discussed offline with PCE chairs, and they agree that it’s better to use “Controller” or “Controller/PCE” as PCE notion is tied now to PCEP protocol. Likely the PIM draft needs to be updated too. Brgds, Stephane From: Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 6:55 PM To: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [bess] Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp Stephane, Inline @ [RP] On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:01 AM Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi authors, Please find below my chair/shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp. Introduction: * “A SR P2MP tree is defined by a SR P2MP Policy and instantiated via a PCE” * I would use the name controller instead of PCE. PCE is really tied to PCEP protocol IMO. If we agree, then you should change it across the doc. I appears in other sections too. [RP] This draft is based on the PIM WG SR P2MP policy draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy/ which describes use of PCE to compute P2MP trees. Section 4.4 of that draft clarifies that various protocols, such as PCEP, BGP etc. can be used between PCE and PCC. IMO, it is appropriate to use PCE in this draft. Section 2: * “A Replication segment of a SR P2MP tree can be instantiated…” * Shoudln’t you provide informational refs here ? [RP] The preceding text provides references for both Replication segments (RFC 9524) SR P2MP tree (draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy). Isn't that sufficient. Section 3: * I would enhance the tunnel-type description with a list, something like “ * Tunnel Type: • 0x0c for SR-MPLS P2MP tree • TBD for SRv6 P2MP Tree “ Section 3.1.2 s/”Domain- wide”/”Domain-wide” (remove space) Section 4.1.1 Use an XML reference for RFC6514 Section 9.1.1 instead of hardcoding in text. (same in 4.1.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3.2…). [RP] These are "external" (eref as described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7991#section-2.24) references, which are rendered appropriately as URI links in HTML format and with URI text in TXT format. When you refer to “condition (c)”, it’s not clear, where it’s defined. [RP] Added reference to Section 9.1.1 RFC 6514 Section 10 Please fix last name of Luc Andre (there are two “t” instead of t, it should be Burdet). [RP] Fixed. Thanks, Stephane _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
