Matthew,

We just published rev 04 that should address all your comments.
Thank you for reviewing!

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 4:50 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [bess] Document shepherd's review of 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-03
Resent-From: <[email protected]>
Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, 
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Resent-Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 4:50 PM

    Authors, WG,
    
    One further comment on this draft.
    
    In the IANA considerations section you request the creation of a new 
registry for the "ARP/ND Extended Community Flags octet". The registry has a 
number of unassigned Flags. However, the draft does not specify a registration 
policy for this registry.
    
    Please can you propose a suitable registration policy. See section 4 of RFC 
8126 for information on the different policies. 
    
    Thanks
    
    Matthew
    
    
    
    On 26/06/2019, 17:46, "BESS on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
    
        Authors
        
        I am the document shepherd for this draft. Please see below for my 
comments. Please treat these as you would any other WG last call comments.
        
        Best regards
        
        Matthew
        
        General:
        Why do you say the EVPN ARP/ND Extended Community is optional? Don’t 
you always use it if you comply to the procedures in the draft? Also, I am not 
clear why in section 3 you say the PE will follow the procedures (which I 
interpret as a MUST), but there are no MUSTs in e.g. 3a.
        
        Please clarify in the draft.
        
        Please also check the capitalization of RFC2119 keywords throughout. 
For example, there are a few instances where a 'may' should be a 'MAY'
        
        Abstract and 1. Introduction
        This document proposes an OPTIONAL extended community that is
           advertised ...
        
        Change to 'this document defines an extended community..."
        
                
        Section 1.1 Terminology and Conventions:
        "Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Requests or Neighbor Discovery (ND) 
- or Neighbor Solicitation (NS) - messages are replied locally by the PE,"
        This text seems to mix up Neighbor Discovery (the process) with 
Neighbor Solicitation (the message). I would suggest deleting Neighbor 
Discovery from this sentence.
        
        1. Use of the EVPN ARP/ND Extended Community
        
        A PE may learn the IPv6->MAC pair and its associated ND Flags in the 
management plane or snooping Neighbor Advertisement messages coming from the CE.
        
        s/management plane or snooping Neighbor/management plane or by snooping 
Neighbor
        
        _______________________________________________
        BESS mailing list
        [email protected]
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
        
    
    

_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to