On 2/21/17, 12:39 PM, "Sami Boutros" <[email protected]> wrote:
Sami: Hi! > Please see comments inline. I have submitted 09. I just have a couple of small things below, the biggest being the 24-bit alignment – which seems to be resolved on the list. I’m going to start the IETF Last Call, but please update the draft when you get a chance. Thanks, Alvaro. … > > > > M5.1. Section 3: “Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field is set to the 24-bit > > > > VPWS service instance > > > > identifier” > > > > How should this be aligned into the larger field? > > > > > > Sami: Changed the text to "This document specifies the use of the per EVI > > > Ethernet A-D route > > > to signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to > > > the customer ES and > > > the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to the 24-bit VPWS service > > > instance identifier > > > value." > > > > Ok, but you still didn’t mention how the 24-bit value is to be aligned in > > the 32-bit field. I’m > > guessing there will be some 0-padding, but will that the at the beginning > > or the end? > > > > I made the VPWS service instance identifier a 32-bit value in the new draft. I also like Patrice’s suggestion [1] [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/hYuoAvF4eeYVSRRrlVi8MQMOf3Y/?qid=50f2dee8ec109478be61f1e0aefd03a5 … > > > > P2. The [MEF] reference didn’t work for me; on all tries the connection > > > > timed out. Is it > > > > possible to find a more stable reference? > > > > > > Sami: No clue here! > > How about this: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__www.mef.net_Assets_Technical-5FSpecifications_PDF_MEF-5F6.1.pdf&d=DwIGaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=IVzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX-2K-LV98&m=GH5FIfqtBUACPwx-LVV2v5zPrGcNzhCEjfj8-0-R2OI&s=5b19ceQDqdsz0TepqsV7daJoYm9uDMyco7BZ4NeICWU&e= ?? > > > > Thanks, Sorry, I don’t know why we ended up with that long thing, this is the short one: https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_6.1.pdf > > … > > > > P9. There is no Reference to any of the Extended Communities RFCs: > > > > 4360, 7153, etc… > > > > > > Sami: Done. > > > > We still need a reference to rfc4360 – at least in Section 3.1 where the > > new community is > > defined. > > > > You did add a reference to rfc7153, but it is not used in the text. ☹ > > There’s no point in having it > > if it isn’t used! > > I changed the text as follow in 3.1 and added/removed the above references. > > "This draft proposes a new extended community, defined below as per [RFC7432] > in addition to > the values specified in [RFC4360]" This is enough: “This draft proposes a new extended community [RFC4360]…”. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
