Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-09: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 4.1: EVPN MAC/IP Sub-TLV This Sub-TLV appears to be used for both EVPN MAC/IP and PBB-EVPN. The content of the TLV contains information for EVPN taken from [RFC7432] and PBB-EVPN taken from [RFC7623]. This begs the question as to why these are both merged into the same Sub-TLV rather than have separate Sub-TLVs. The name of the Sub-TLV implies it's for EVPN but it is not exclusively for that. Also, there are fields in the TLV such as Ethernet Tag ID that are relevant only to PBB-EVPN (or vice versa) so I assume that these would be set to zero if not used (?) but the document does not specify this. Section 8:1: Sub-type TLV This document defines four new Sub-TLV type to be included in Target FEC Stack TLV (TLV Type 1, 16 and 21) [RFC8029] in Echo Request and Echo Reply messages in EVPN and PBB-EVPN network. The reference to RFC8029 looks incorrect. I think this is referring to RFC9041 and if so, the reference should be corrected. The Target FEC Stack TLV sub-TLVs are in this registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-1-16-21. IANA is requested to assign lowest 4 free values for the four Sub- TLVs listed below from the Standards Track" (0-16383) range If this is in fact referencing RFC9041 then the 0-16383 range is "Standards Action" NOT "Standards Track" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Several issues are noted in the nits printout that should be fixed. The main one is the RFC2119 boilerplate. It is present in the document, but the references are not listed in the normative references section of the document. Minor nits: - Section 1: - First paragraph: "layer 2" should be hyphenated "layer-2". - First paragraph: a reference for multi-protocol BGP should be provided. - Third paragraph, 5th sentence: " infiormation" typo. - I would like to see a reference provided for the Target FEC Stack TLV. It appears to be defined in RFC8029. - In general, there are a lot of missing "an" and "the" in the gramma. - Section 4: - The last sentence "These Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs are described next" seems redundant and could be removed. - Section 4.2: - The first sentence states "The EVPN Inclusive Multicast Sub-TLV fields are based on the EVPN Inclusive Multicast route defined in [RFC7432] Section 7.3.". RFC 4732 actually refers to this as "Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route". Please correct the text to include "Tag". - Section 4.3: - Typo "Segememnt" beginning of third paragraph. - Section 5: - Last sentence "The code points for ipv4 and ipv6 channels are defiend in Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters by IANA." should capitalize ipv4 and ipv6 and fix "defiend" typo. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
