Im fine with changes.
Thanks From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet) Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 7:31 PM To: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <slitk...@cisco.com>; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh...@ietf.org Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bess] Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-08 Thanks Stéphane, I am uploading v09 shortly. The missing references to i.e. LACP are actually in the MCLAG section and some of the first expansions you mention also : I think the best solution is to simply move Fig1 down into there. Let me know what you think Regards, Luc André Luc André Burdet | lbur...@cisco.com <mailto:lbur...@cisco.com> | Tel: +1 613 254 4814 From: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <slitk...@cisco.com <mailto:slitk...@cisco.com> > Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 05:54 To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh...@ietf.org> <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh...@ietf.org> > Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org> <bess-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org> >, bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org> <bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org> > Subject: Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-08 Hi, Here is my last review (as WG chair) of the draft, I have also requested a GEN-ART review. Abstract: Use RFC7432 as a plain text reference and not as a link (xml xtarget) in the abstract. Introduction: s/QOS/QoS/ I think this sentence is useless in the text as previous one already mentions the same: A new type of load-balancing mode, Port-Active redundancy, is defined. Need to expand MC-LAG on first use Dont you need to provide an informative reference for LACP ? you may need to expand it on first use. Also dont need to say LACP protocol , but just say LACP, P=protocol. s/aca tive/active Section 2: Refer to LACP and expansion should be intro, not here. s/must synchronize data among them/ must synchronize data between them/ Not able to parse this properly: as are LAG misconfiguration and miswiring detection across peering PEs. Section 3.1: s/QOS/QoS Expand DF abbrev (first use) Section 3.2: I think the term Peering PEs is unclear and may need a better wording. On Bullet d., it would be worth using some normative language regarding the usage of DF election. Bullet f. first sentence should use normative language IMO. SHOULD by default implement ? or MUST ? Should bullet g. use normative language ? Would it be a MAY (optional) or SHOULD (if highly recommended) ? Section 4: s/ new Port Mode Load-Balancing capability/ new Port Mode Load-Balancing capability bit Section 4.4: Add reference to pref-df-draft Section 4.5: Add reference to RFC8584
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
