Hi authors and contributors of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis.

I have started reading the draft in hope to find a section that describes the 
differences between the original RFC 7432 and the "bis" draft for this RFC.
AFAIK, such sections are quite customary when a "bis" revision of an already 
approved and published RFC is proposed.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no such section in the draft, and looking for 
the differences in a 64-page document is quite non-trivial.
This may be one of the reasons why no comments have appeared at the BESS WG 
mailing list in 5 months following the draft posting.

May I suggest that you add such a section (or Appendix) to the next revision of 
the draft?

Looking just at the tables of contents of RFC 7432 and of the draft I see that 
the following new sections have been added (could have missed some items)

    
7.9<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-00#section-7.9>.
  EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community

       
7.9.1<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-00#section-7.9.1>.
  EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Partitioning

    
7.12<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-00#section-7.12>.
 Route Prioritization

       
10.1.1<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-00#section-10.1.1>.
  Best Path selection for Default Gateway

    
15.2<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-00#section-15.2>.
  Sticky MAC Addresses

    
18.1<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-00#section-18.1>.
  Flow Label

   
19<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-00#section-19>.
 Use of Domain-wide Common Block (DCB) Labels



There are also some changes in the text of the sections that have existed in 
RFC 743. E.g., I see reference to BIER in the draft that do not exist in RFC 
7432.

Tracking such changes would be quite difficult without the authors' help in the 
form of a "Summary of changes from RFC 7432" section/Appendix.

Such a section, if added, would be also included in the resulting RFC.

Hopefully this comment will be useful.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   [email protected]

From: BESS <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Luc Andr? Burdet
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 9:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [bess] RFC7432bis : Request for review

Hi,

The update to RFC7432 is an important draft for the WG - could you please 
review offline and provide feedback?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis<https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Hss71ZoqyYVo1fFGH3PvdW6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis>

I would like to incorporate feedback into a new version published before IETF 
111, or discuss then any substantive content

Regards,
Luc André Burdet |  Cisco  |  
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>  |  Tel: +1 613 254 4814


Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of 
Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or 
proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, 
reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is 
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the 
sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.

Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of 
Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or 
proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, 
reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is 
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the 
sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to