Vijay: Hi!
Thanks for your review! The registry has a FCFS registration policy, so at some point in the life of draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay the code points were requested — not necessarily in the draft itself. Even though draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay is tagged in the datatracker to have replaced draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay, I think you make a good point in that the registry needs to be updated with the current/correct information. Authors: Please add a note in the IANA Considerations Section to have the reference in the registry point to this document. Thanks! Alvaro. On December 21, 2017 at 9:16:53 AM, Vijay Gurbani ([email protected]) wrote: Minor issues: In S13 (IANA Considerations), I am not sure whether this draft is allocating the tunnel types or not. The responsible IANA registry [0] shows that the tunnel types mentioned in this draft are already allocated through a precursor individual draft [1], which has long expired. However, when I look at the IANA Consideration section in [1], it is empty! So I am not sure how the IANA registry in [0] received the allocations. I think the IANA section of this draft needs to be updated accordingly. [0] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#tunnel-types [1] http://www.iana.org/go/draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay (the expired individual draft itself is at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay-03)
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
