Thanks for the update based on the latest discussion.
Please also update the text in item 4 under section 6.2, remove the text related to the sequence number and the Leave group synchronization procedure. Wen From: BESS <[email protected]> on behalf of "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 4:30 PM To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "Prabhu, Vinod (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Dornon, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [bess] new WGLC on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-05 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Thanks Jorge, Noted it. Will wait for any other comments. And make changes all together. From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 1:09 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Prabhu, Vinod (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[email protected]>, "Dornon, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [bess] new WGLC on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-05 Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 1:09 PM Hi, I think the changes are ok, since they follow the latest discussions. The document is ready to progress. Not that should hold the WG Last Call, but please, fix the following text that we found confusing, as part of the following revision: The IGMP Join Synch route MUST carry the ES-Import RT for the ES on which the IGMP Membership Report was received. Thus it MUST only be sent to the PEs attached to that ES and not any other PEs. s/ Thus it MUST only be sent to the PEs attached to that ES and not any other PEs. / Thus it MUST only be imported by the PEs attached to that ES and not any other PEs. / That is, the ES-Import RT per-se does not determine to what PEs the route is sent. It determines the dissemination along with RT Constraint, but the MUST statement – if needed - should really be added along with the import action. Thanks. Jorge From: BESS <[email protected]> on behalf of "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:54 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [bess] new WGLC on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-05 Hi WG, Following the discussion and significant document update, we are starting a new Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-05 This poll runs until the 1st of June. Please read carefully the document and raise any concern about the changes that have been introduced. Thanks, Stephane & Matthew https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UaHzeB7A2m8fGspSmagnx_gCrizwnoSgtxTaGdAavDOuKRVEfD3XMyY9SZK6rg$> Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
