Hi, Thanks for the responses. Please see inline below.
BR Zahed On 2021-04-07, 20:21, "Donald Eastlake" <[email protected]> wrote: Thanks for your comments. See below. On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:02 PM Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: No Objection > > ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for the document and thanks to David Black for TSVART review. > > Nits/comments: > > * P-MAC and C-MAC are these defined somewhere else? References would be nice > here. P-MAC does not occur in the draft; I think you mean B-MAC. C-MAC is Customer/Client MAC address and B-MAC is Backbone MAC address as further specified in RFC 7623. These can be spelled out and a reference to RFC 7623 (which is already listed in the References for the draft) added. Yes, I meant B-MAC and C-MAC . And yes spelling out and reference will be helpful. > * Section 1.3, Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 describes P nodes in different > ways and that has created confusion to me. Can this be well defined in the > terminology section once and just be used in other place? OK, except I think it should be spelled out on first use in 2.1. But certainly the wording should be parallel in these cases. > * Section 2.5 : "[802.3]" is this supposed to be a reference? it leads to > nowhere. Yes, it is intended to be reference to IEEE Std 802.3-2015 (or whatever the most recent version is). I have no idea why the nits checker doesn't complain about this being missing from the References sections. If it did, it would already have been fixed. Since this is just an example, I think it can be added as an Informational Reference. OK. > * Section 3.1.1.2.1 : first time encountered "network management station > (NMS)", if this document is not introducing it then I would suggest to at this > to section 1.3 and add some descriptive texts, otherwise define it. Would it be sufficient to add an entry in the terminology section (1.3) and a reference to RFC 6623? Yes, that will do. > * Section 3.1.2.1 : would be nice to expand MTU. Sure. > * Section 3.2.1: I can't really parse - "EVPN Network OAM SHOULD provide > mechanisms for measuring packet loss for a given service [RFC7680] [RFC6673]." > are these IPPM mechanisms recommended to be used for EVPN networks? or are > those merely examples? These are examples. In that case, I would suggest to rephrase the sentence to be clear that those are examples. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [email protected] _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
