Hi,
We are fine with keeping 5512 as the Normative reference for now.
We would think it wise if the editors can add an Informative reference
to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps (with some text indicating that both
specs provide the required support for the procedures).
The ideal situation would be that tunnel-encaps progresses fast enough
so that in the last stages before publishing evpn-overlay we can be in a
situation to make tunnel-encaps the Normative reference. RFC 4897 would
facilitate that by the way.
If the WG has specific opinions on that matter, they are welcome.
We take good note of the shepherd suggestion. We'll confirm who will
shepherd the document after WG LC (we'll also call for volunteers during
WG Last Call).
Reviews are highly welcome anyway, in particular from people
close to the topic or implementations, and ideally from more than one
person, the best time being now or at least before the WG LC ends.
We'll start the WG LC in a couple of days.
Martin & Thomas
Le 24/05/2016 15:39, John E Drake a écrit :
Hi,
Ali and I decided to keep the normative reference to RFC 5512 rather
than changing it to Eric’s tunnel encapsulation draft because the
normative reference pre-dates Eric’s draft and because our draft does
not use any of the new capabilities introduced in Eric’s draft.
Ali and I would also like to request that Jorge be the document shepherd
for this draft.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
*From:*Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:05 AM
*To:* John E Drake; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com; IDR; BESS;
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-over...@tools.ietf.org; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
US); draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-en...@tools.ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs.
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps
Folks,
I have updated and published rev03 of even-overlay draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay/
The main changes are:
1. section 10.2 – DCI using ASBR
2. The setting of Ethernet tag and VNI fields – there were some
inconsistencies in different sections. Section 5.1.3 captures the
setting of these fields for different type of services in pretty
good details. All other sections were cleaned up and now refer to
section 5.1.3.
Thomas,
The draft is ready for its long-overdue WG LC considering how long its
has been around and its multi-vendor implementation status.
Regards,
Ali
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
