Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: 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-oam-req-frmwk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated). I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == Minor regret for a doc shepherd write-up, which is dated 9 months ago... -- Section 1 -- Introducing C-MAC and B-MAC could be useful for the reader. -- Section 1.3 -- Slighlty puzzled by MA/MEP/MIP as those are only about the M of OAM. Should those be OAMA, OAMEP, OAMIP ? Or at least should there be some explanations ? -- Section 2.2 -- I must confess my lack of knowledge about CFM frames but I am puzzled by "snooping on CFM frames and advertising them to remote PEs as a MAC/IP" 1) if the CFM frame are not IP, then how can it be advertised in a MAC/IP ? (i.e., the CE may not use IP at all) 2) if the CFM frame are IP, then which version of IP ? and how to recognize them ? Or did I miss something obvious ? -- Section 3.1.2.1 -- Does this section cover OAM designed by other WG ? E.g., draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data or draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark -- Section 3.2.1 -- Mostly the same comment as for 3.1.2.1, this section is only about synthetic traffic injection. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
