Thanks for your review and feedback. You are spot on. If the document was 
talking about only VPLS/PBB-VPLS or EVPN/PBB-EVPN, then BCP would be 
appropriate but this document specifies the mechanism needed for an 
EVPN/PBB-EVPN PEs to simultaneously interoperate with both EVPN/PBB-EVPN and 
VPLS/PBB-VPLS PEs. It specifies the control-plane and forwarding behavior for 
unicast, multicast, discovery of VPN members, and MAC mobility in context of 
such a mix mode. 


´╗┐On 1/9/19, 1:05 PM, "Deborah Brungard" <> wrote:

    Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: Yes
    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)
    Please refer to
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    I agree with the current status as PS. While it does not define new
    codepoints or protocol extensions, it defines new mechanisms
    which need to be supported by all (PBB-)EVPN nodes. The mechanisms
    are not supported by operational configuration, they are new
    mechanisms which need to be supported by the node itself.
    A BCP/Informational status would be appropriate if this document
    was only defining the procedures related to the VPLS or PBB-VPLS
    PEs. For those nodes, there is no change, as all the new mechanisms
    supporting seamless integration need to be supported on the EVPN nodes.

BESS mailing list

Reply via email to