Hi Authors,
Please find below my review of the latest version of the draft:
Abstract:
The abstract refers to RFC7432bis but don’t make RFC7432bis as normative
reference and also drafts is marked as updating RFC7432.
Here you should make a choice, either you base the draft on RFC7432 and not
me
I support adoption : clarifying spec and improving interop is important.
Thank you for section 4 regarding Backward Compatibility.
May be 1 comment although I didn't take time to read everything in details and
I'm not familiar with EVPN.
It's not completely clear to me whether backward compatibi
Support the adoption.
From: BESS on behalf of Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
Date: Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 3:46 AM
To: bess@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG Adoption Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-uasge-16
WG
This email starts a one-week WG adoption p
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-16.txt is now
available. It is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS (BESS) WG of the
IETF.
Title: Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB
Authors: Neeraj Malhotra
Ali Sajassi
Aparna Pattekar
Hi Stephane,
Many thanks for the detailed review and comments. Have updated the document
addressing all of the comments below.
Specifically regarding the issue of referencing rfc7432 or rfc7432bis, I have
modified the reference to be on rfc7432 since existing 7432 is sufficient as a
reference
Internet-Draft draft-skr-bess-evpn-pim-proxy-02.txt is now available. It is a
work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS (BESS) WG of the IETF.
Title: PIM Proxy in EVPN Networks
Authors: Jorge Rabadan
Jayant Kotalwar
Senthil Sathappan
Zhaohui Zhang
