Hi Murray, Thanks for reviewing. Please see my comments in-line with [jorge]. We have addressed your comments, you should see the changes in the next revision.
Thx Jorge From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 5:23 AM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]> Subject: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: (with COMMENT) Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: No Objection 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to Barry's comments, I found that "BD" appears in the glossary twice, and "SLLA" appears in the glossary but nowhere else in the document. [jorge] fixed both things, thanks. Are "Address Resolution" and "Large Data Center" formal terms? If not, they should be lowercase. [jorge] fixed address resolution. Since we are using DC as an acronym, I’m using DC consistently now, throughout the document. Thanks. Alluding to a lot of things Alvaro pointed out: Many of the SHOULDs in this document are bare, in that they give the implementer a choice but no guidance on how to make that choice. For instance: A Proxy-ARP/ND implementation SHOULD support static, dynamic and EVPN-learned entries. How would I decide whether I've got a use case that justifies not doing one of those, and what are the interoperability implications of that decision? I suggest reviewing these. [jorge] we reviewed all those after Alvaro’s review. About the one you point out, I changed it to: “A Proxy-ARP/ND implementation in an EVPN BD MUST support dynamic and EVPN-learned entries, and SHOULD support static entries.” Since if the solution is implemented, at least dynamic and evpn entries are needed.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
