Hi Joel, I have addressed your comments and uploaded a new version of the doc.
Thanks Parag From: Parag Jain (paragj) <[email protected]> Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:26 AM To: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07 Hi Joel Thanks for the directorate review comments. Let me incorporate them and publish new version. Thanks Parag From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 9:47 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review result: Ready This is a routing directorate review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07 provided by Joel Halpern at the request of the routing directorate review team leaders as input to the routing area directors. Please treat as any other review comments. (Apologies for the delay.) This document is Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. Comments: Major: None Minor: Section 4.1 describes the EVPN MAC Sub-TLV. And states it is derived from MAC/IP advertisement route. I note that in RFC 7623 (PBB-EVPN) there are restrictions on several of these fields. Should this section note at least that in the PBB-EVPN case those restrictions apply (probably with a pointer, not repeating the restrictions)? Section 4.4 describes EVPN IP Prefix Sub-TLV. From the wording I suspect that it applies only to the EVPN case and not to the PBB-EVPN case. In 4.3, the text was explicit about that applicability. Could we be equally clear here?
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
