Hi Thomas,
Referencing the section 8 of idr-tunnel-encap draft is too wide a scope
IMHO and maybe confusing, thus I'd like to narrow it down. I went over the
both sections 3.5 and 8 of the idr-tunnel-encap draft and with respect to
your comment, I’d like to narrow it to only section 8.2.2.2. ("When a
Valid VNI has not been Signaled”) with regard to its applicability to
evpn-overlay draft - to be more precise is the 2nd bullet of section
8.2.2.2. So, I’d like to change your suggested text to:
"Note that the procedure defined here to use the MPLS Label field to carry
the VNI in the presence of a Tunnel Encapsulation Extended Community
specifying the use of a VNI, is aligned with the procedures described in
section 8.2.2.2 of [tunnel-encap] (“When a Valid VNI has not been
Signaled”).
Cheers,
Ali
On 6/13/16, 8:49 AM, "BESS on behalf of Thomas Morin"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Ali,
>
>The changes in -04 look good.
>
>I would have one suggestion: say explicitly that the "use the label as
>the VNI" behavior is the same as what the tunnel encap says.
>
>This could be done by adding something like the following to section
>5.1.3 :
>
>Note that the procedure defined here to use the MPLS Label field to
>carry the VNI in the presence
> of a Tunnel Encapsulation Extended Community specifying the use of a
>VNI, is
> aligned with the procedures described in [tunnel-encap] (Section
>"Use of Virtual Network
> Identifiers and Embedded Labels when Imposing a Tunnel Encapsulation
>" for "Labeled Address Families").
>
>Best,
>
>-Thomas
>
>
>
>Le 07/06/2016 à 18:04, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) a écrit :
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> We¹ll also add idr-tunnel-encaps a Informative reference. With respect
>>to
>> Tunnel Encap Extended Community (which is the only part of
>> idr-tunnel-encap used by evpn-overlay draft), idr-tunel-encap draft
>>itself
>> references RFC 5512.
>>
>> During the course of WG LC and RFC editorship of evpn-overlay draft, if
>>we
>> see that idr-tunnel-encap is progressing fast, then we can drop the
>> reference to RFC 5512 and make the reference to idr-tunnel-encap
>> Normative. Otherwise, we¹ll keep both references with RFC 5512 as
>> Normative and idr-tunnel-encap as Informative.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ali
>>
>> On 6/7/16, 1:08 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"
>> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 Eric¹s tunnel encapsulation draft because the
>>>> normative reference pre-dates Eric¹s draft and because our draft does
>>>> not use any of the new capabilities introduced in Eric¹s 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:[email protected]]
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:05 AM
>>>> *To:* John E Drake; EXT [email protected]; IDR; BESS;
>>>> [email protected]; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
>>>> US);[email protected]
>>>> *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
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
