Hi Ali,
2016-11-21, Ali Sajassi (sajassi):
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.
Looks good to me.
As far as I know, WG LC comments have been addressed.
Thanks,
-Thomas
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
