Hi Eric, Thanks, uploaded the new version addressing your comment. Pending:
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 MM : It was not my day to get this logic work in XML. Will figure out some expert to enter section there to articulate two different sub topic (sender side processing and receiving side processing ) Rest other comment have been addressed. Mankamana From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 at 5:39 AM To: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <[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) 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
