Hi Thomas, I incorporated the two comments below and just published a new rev. I am looking forward to the assignment of the doc. Shepard and his/her comments so that we can wrap this up.
Regards, Ali On 11/14/16, 6:20 AM, "Thomas Morin" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Ali, > >2016-11-11, Ali Sajassi (sajassi): >>> Here are a two comments on the changes in >>>draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-05: >>> >>>> 5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes >>>> >>>> In EVPN, an MPLS label identifying forwarding table is distributed >>>>by >>> >>> "identifying forwarding table" was inserted above in -05 >>> Is the use of a per access circuit MPLS label really precluded ? Why ? >> >> It was added for clarification. To address your concern of not >>precluding >> ACs, I¹ll change the sentence as below: >> >> from: "In EVPN, an MPLS label identifying forwarding table is >>distributed >> by" >> to: "In EVPN, an MPLS label typically identifying forwarding table is >> distributed by" > >This is better, although "for instance" would I think be more appropriate. Done. Changed it to “for instance” > >>> [...] >>>> 9 Support for Multicast >>>> >>>> The E-VPN Inclusive Multicast BGP route is used to discover the >>>> multicast tunnels among the endpoints associated with a given EVI >>>> (e.g., given VNI) for VLAN-based service and a given <EVI,VLAN> for >>>> VLAN-aware bundle service. The Ethernet Tag field of this route is >>>> set as described in section 5.1.3. >>> >>> It was agreed in June to strike this sentence, which does not seem to >>> add any information. >>> ( https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bess/current/msg01769.html ) >> >> John agreed to strike the last sentence and not the whole paragraph. > >Indeed John agreed. >(I'm not sure why you mention striking the whole paragraph, I don't >recall anyone asking that, and certainly not me) > >> And frankly I think it is OK to keep the last sentence and to remind the >> reader that the Ethernet Tag field is set per section 5.1.3. We are not >> duplicating text here. We are just providing a reference. > >Mentioning *only* this field as being set as described in section 5.1.3 >can also be a possible source of confusion (are other fields set >according to another section?). > >I would suggest one of the following: >- strike the sentence >- say something like "all fields in this route are set as described in >section 5.1.3" O.K. Done! > >Best, > >-Thomas _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
