Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: No Objection
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-virtual-eth-segment/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have serious readability concerns, but the RFC Editor will catch a lot of it. I'd like to focus on the problems that limited my understanding of this document. The abstract is nearly impenetrable, thanks to dense acronyms and grammar mistakes. The verbiage is repeated in the Introduction. In particular OLD These solutions introduce Single-Active and All-Active for an Ethernet Segment (ES), NEW These solutions introduce Single-Active and All-Active redundancy modes for an Ethernet Segment (ES), (S1.2) "In some cases, this aggregation of PWs that share the same LSP pair may not be possible. For instance, if PW3 were terminated into a third PE, e.g. PE3, instead of PE1, the vES would need to be defined on a per individual PW on each PE, i.e. PW3 and PW5 would belong to ES-1, whereas PW4 and PW6 would be associated to ES-2." "defined on a per individual PW on each PE" is grammatically incorrect, but I think you mean that each PW gets its own vES. But that would mean that you need four ESs, not two. (S2) Please add EVI and Ethernet A-D to the glossary _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
