Hello Mankamana, Thanks for your reply, see below for EV> (I have elided the original DISCUSS part). As soon as a revised I-D is uploaded, then I am clearing my DISCUSS.
Regards -éric From: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 11 February 2022 at 00:33 To: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi Eric, Thanks for comment. 1. For text which talks about how to decode BGP routes back , will it be ok to have common section after BPG encoding (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-16#section-9) ? which talks about fact that receiving PE need to decode it back and consider it as IGMP membership request and process it ? EV> adding sections 9.1.3 / 9.2.3 / 9.3.3 "reconstructing the MLD/IGMP" per route type would be preferred of course, but a common subsection on reconstruction either after 9.3 (preferred) or after 9.1 would be OK (in the sense that it addresses my DISCUSS but is less easy for the readers/implementers) 1. About number restarting – There was comment by Alvaro where he wanted these numbers to be restarting to differentiate sender and receiver processing EV> I am sure that Alvaro will not mind have some text, even just 4 words, separating the sender / receiver processing 1. SMET, I would take care of it in terminology. EV> thanks
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
