Thanks Ali. General Ack to all your responses, make sense.
A follow-up question, though:
I notice “Reserved” in a few places. For example in Figure 4, which seems to
make sense as the Reserved is a Must Be Zero (MBZ)
However, on the Flags, it says:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| reserved |L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
…
Initial registrations are as follows:
bit Name Reference
0-6 Reserved This document
7 Leaf-Indication This document
Do you mean “Reserved” for the unassigned bit flags, or “Unassigned” (see the
different in RFC 8126).
Finally, in the sentence:
The reserved bits should be set to zero by the transmitter and should
be ignored by the receiver.
Do those two “should” mean “should”, “SHOULD”, or “MUST”?
Thanks!
Carlos.
On Aug 16, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Thanks for your review and comments. Please see inline for my responses.
On 8/7/17, 2:46 PM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review result: Has Issues
Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review result: Has Nits (and one potential Issue)
I am the OPS-DIR reviewer and in general I do not have operational concerns
with this document.
The main issue I have is in regards to the redefinition of the MSB of the
Tunnel Type, and associated backwards/forward compatibility considerations.
I note that RFC 7385 is Normatively referenced by a number of I-Ds:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7385/referencedby/
BUT draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree is not:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree/referencedby/
So would those former be pointing to old info? And what other Backwards Compat
considerations are there?
To maximize backward/forward compatibility, let's retain the value for
"Experimental Use” and “Reserved” as before per [RFC7385] and reduce the range
for Composite tunnel for this draft. So, the changes will be
From existing IANA assignments:
0x0C - 0xFA Unassigned
0xFB - 0xFE Experimental [RFC7385]
0xFF Reserved [RFC7385]
To:
0x0C – 0x3F Unassigned
0x80 – 0xBF reserved for composite tunnel
0xD0 – 0xFA Unassigned
0xFB - 0xFE Experimental [RFC7385]
0xFF Reserved [RFC7385]
Further, some nits and editorials for your consideration:
The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) has defined a rooted-multipoint
Ethernet service known as Ethernet Tree (E-Tree). A solution
framework for supporting this service in MPLS networks is proposed in
RFC7387 ("A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network").
Proposed? Or Described / Defined?
OK, changed to “described"
Same comment for the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Intro.
Changed to “describes"
This document makes use of the
most significant bit of the scope governed by the IANA registry
created by RFC7385, and hence updates RFC7385 accordingly.
RFC 7385 does not mention a "scope". This really talks about the Tunnel Type.
Please reword for unambiguous clarity.
Changed it to “This document makes use of the most significant bit of the PMSI
tunnel type governed by the IANA …"
3.1 Known Unicast Traffic
To support the above ingress filtering functionality, a new E-TREE
Extended Community with a Leaf indication flag is introduced [section
5.2]. This new Extended Community MUST be advertised with MAC/IP
Section 5.2 is not a referenced citation.
Changed it to “[5.1]”. Nice catch! Thanks.
Similar issue with [5.1] at:
In PBB-EVPN, the PE advertises a Root/Leaf indication along with each
B-MAC Advertisement route, to indicate whether the associated B-MAC
address corresponds to a Root or a Leaf site. Just like the EVPN
case, the new E-TREE Extended Community defined in section [5.1] is
advertised with each MAC Advertisement route.
This paragraph refers to the correct section!
3.2 BUM Traffic
Please expand to Broadcast, Unkonwn, Multicast.
Done.
When receiver ingress-replication label is needed, the high-order bit
of the tunnel type field (Composite Tunnel bit) is set while the
remaining low-order seven bits indicate the tunnel type as before.
I believe it would be useful to depict the Composite Tunnel bit in Figure 5 as
well... It's not only a 1-octet Type.
I believe the description is clear in the text and adding additional diagram
and text to describe the diagram would make it too verbose.
Also, please note:
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226
Changed it to RFC 8126.
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7387
That’s OK.
Thanks again for your review,
Ali
Thank you!
Carlos.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
