I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-09
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2023-11-10
IETF LC End Date: ?
IESG Telechat date: ?
Summary:
This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the
review.
Issues: 2
Nits: 0
Note: This reviewer is not burdened with any knowledge of the subject
matter. It is possible that the points I raise below may be entirely
clear to a subject matter expert. Just take this as input from a fresh
and unbiased set of eyes.
Otherwise the draft seems in good shape.
1) ISSUE: Ambiguity, Section 3.2(c):
I find the normative statement here to be ambiguous:
"PEs in the redundancy group MAY exchange only the Ethernet-Segment (ES)
route (Route Type‑4) when ESI is configured on a Layer‑3 interface."
To what does "MAY" apply? What is the alternative? Does this mean that
exchanging the ES route is optional? Or is this excluding exchanging
other forms of route? Or something else?
2) ISSUE: Confusing algorithm in 4.3(2):
I find the expression:
"2. BDF(Es) = Sk| Weight(Es, Si) >= Weight(Es, Sk), and Weight(Es, Sk)
>= Weight(Es, Sj)."
confusing, even with the subsequent qualifier:
"BDF(Es) is defined as that PE with address Sk for which the computed
Weight is the next highest after the Weight of the DF. j is the running
index from 0 to N-1; i and k are selected values."
Can you find a clearer way to state this?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
