Hi, Jorge.
I checked through version 11 and the changes look good.
The point about the alignment of the IP prefix in s3.1 is that, depending on
the length of the prefix, only a subset if the bits are relevant. It might be
'obvious' that the relevant bits are the leftmost ones but they could be the
rightmost bits. Better safe than sorry!
There are a couple of nits that could be pointed out to RFC editor if you
aren't doing any more updates.
Abstract: you aren't allowed references in bthe abstract, s/[RFCxxxx]/(RFC
xxxx)/ in two places.
s1: Expand TS on first use as it is before terminology.
S3.1 (3rd bullet afted Fig 4): s/byte/octet/
There ars a couple of instances where the global replacement of section by
Section has been over-enthusiastic: ss2, 3.2, 4, 4.3, 4.4 ('This Section'), ss2
(last para), 4.4.2 (p.29) ('Sections').
Cheers,Elwyn.
-----Original Message-----
Elwyn,
Thank you very much for your thorough review.
We addressed all your comments.. see below for more details, with [JORGE].
Thx
Jorge
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd at dial.pipex.com>
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 12:59 PM
To: "gen-art at ietf.org" <gen-art at ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement.all at ietf.org"
<draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement.all at ietf.org>, "ietf at ietf.org"
<ietf at ietf.org>, "bess at ietf.org" <bess at ietf.org>
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10
Resent-From: <alias-bounces at ietf.org>
Resent-To: <jorge.rabadan at nokia.com>, <wim.henderickx at nokia.com>, <jdrake
at juniper.net>, <wlin at juniper.net>, <sajassi at cisco.com>, <matthew.bocci
at nokia.com>, <stephane.litkowski at orange.com>, <martin.vigoureux at
nokia.com>, <db3546 at att.com>, <aretana.ietf at gmail.com>, Zhaohui Zhang
<zzhang at juniper.net>, <zzhang at juniper.net>
Resent-Date: Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 12:59 PM
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2018-04-14
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-10
IESG Telechat date: 2018-05-10
Summary: Almost ready. My main concerns are the lack of a good
introduction
and a rather weak definition of the format of the new EVPN route option
(looking back on RFC 7342, I think this could be said about that document
also!). This is very technical material and a good introduction would help
readers who are not already deeply into the Data Center area to understand
what is going on. Also this document has some remaining vestiges of being
written like an academc paper (some were fixed in the previous revision),
particularly the spurious notion of having 'conclusions' (material actually
deserves to be in the Intro)
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
Lack of a proper introduction: An introduction should precede the
terminology
section and needs to be somewhat clearer about the context (presumably
multi-tenant data centers). A reference to RFC 7365 which describes the data
center model in which the EVPN mechanism is expected to be employed would be
very useful. A somewhat expanded version of the text in s2 would be a good
basis for the introduction. The ss2.1 and 2.2 with a short new header would
become a new section (3) which is the Problem Statement.
[JORGE] OK, I shifted the intro and terminology sections, and expanded the
introduction as you suggested.
s5: Associated with my previous comment... An RFC is not a scientific paper
and
does not have 'conclusions'. On reading s5, it strikes me that this text
would
actually make quite a nice part of the introduction, probably interpolated
after the first paragraph of the current s2.
[JORGE] ok, removed the conclusions section and took the content to the
introduction.
Terminology import: The current s1 contains a number of terms that are
actually
defined in RFC 7365 (Data Center, Tenant System, Network Virtualization
Edge,
etc). Pointing to RFC 7365 s1.1 would be helpful.
[JORGE] Added this in the terminology section:
"This document also assumes familiarity with the terminology of
[RFC7432], [RFC8365] and [RFC7365]."
s1, VNI: There is some difference between the usage of VNI in RFC 8365
(Section
5.1), in RFC 7365 (s3.1.2) where it means Virtual Network Instance and in
this
draft (... Identifier). This is potentially confusing to the naive reader
and
definitely confusing with the usage of VNI in item (4) of s4.1 where the
VNI is
the VXLAN Network Identifier. It would be better if VNI meant the same
thing in
all this closely related work. Please review all instances of VNI in the
draft
to make sure they are talking about the same thing.
[JORGE] Done. I also added:
"VNI: Virtual Network Identifier. As in [RFC8365], the term is used as
a representation of a 24-bit NVO instance identifier, with the
understanding that VNI will refer to a VSID in NVGRE, or VNI in
VXLAN, etc. unless it is stated otherwise."
s2.1:
> [RFC7432] is used as the control plane for a Network Virtualization
> Overlay (NVO3) solution in Data Centers (DC),
The acronym NVO3 is used here as opposed to NVO which is used elsewhere in
the
document. NVO3 is used in RFC 7365 to refer to an overlay with an L3
underlay
network. It is not quite clear to me whether this is a typo with EVPN NOT
being
an NVO3 example or whether the sentence really ought to refer to RFC 7365
and
explicitly say "Network Virtualization Overlay over Layer 3 tunnels". In any
case you can't use an RFC as a control plane - they don't come with knobs on
;-) ! Suggest: NEW: [RFC7432] describes how a BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPN
(EVPN) can provide the control plane for a Network Virtualization Overlay
[over
Layer 3 Tunnels] (NVO[3]) solution in Data Centers (DC), ENDS If this is a
real
NVO3 then probably the NVO3 acronym should be used in the rest of the draft
in
place of NVO.
[JORGE] Good point, but, actually since this document is based on the work done
in [RFC8365] I think we should be consistent with it. And [RFC8365] uses NVO,
so I replaced NVO3 by NVO and added NVO to the terminology.
s3.1: The encoding of the IP Prefix Route encoding is both underspecified
and
to some extent confusing. [I note that this is, in part, inherited from RFC
7342, where I consider Section 7 to be grossly underspecified.]
Specifically:
- Figure 3: Expand RD on first use.
- 1st bullet after Fig 3: The usage of RD
appears to be defined on a per route type basis in RFC 7342. Accordingly I
don't think it is sufficient to refer to how it is done in RFC 7342.
- 2nd bullet after Fig 3: s/byte/octet/ for consistency
- 3rd bullet: Encoding not
specified (presumably unsigned integer)
- 4th bullet: The alignment of the
prefix bits in the field is not specified (presumably left aligned). The
second
sentence about the size of the field is unnecessary and confusing if the
total
length specification is given clearly.
- 6th bullet: The alighment/encoding of
the field is not specified (high order doesn't have any meaning without
this).
- 7th bullet: It would be better to have the length specification as the
first
bullet
- this then clarifies the length possibilities of the IP Prefix and GW
IP address fields. Given that the field lengths are given in octets it
would be
clearer to specify the total length of the BGP EVPN NLRI variable portion in
octets (and to repeat in s3 as in RFC 7342 that the length is the length of
the
varible portion in octets). Thus the length specification would become:
NEW: o
The Length field of the BGP EVPN NLRI for an EVPN IP Prefix route MUST be
either 34 (if IPv4 addresses are carried) or 58 (if IPv6 addresses are
carried). The IP Prefix and Gateway IP Address MUST be from the same IP
address
family
[JORGE] ok, I took most of them. I'm not convinced we need to add the
alignment.. I haven't seen that in any related spec, and definitively not on
the RFCs this document takes as normative references.
Nits/editorial comments:
Global: s/i.e. /i.e., /g, s/e.g. /e.g., /g
[JORGE] done.
Global: Section cross references: s/section/Section/
[JORGE] done.
Global: s/route-target/Route Target/ (c.f. definition in RFC 4364 - it
might be
useful to reference RFC 4364 in the Terminology section where Route Target
is
mentioned.)
[JORGE] done.
Abstract: s/EVPN/The BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPN (EVPN - RFC 7432)
mechanism/
[JORGE] done.
Abstract: Expand NVO on first use and point to RFC 7365.
[JORGE] done.
s1: Mention that many of these terms are fully defined in RFC 7365.
[JORGE] added this: "This document also assumes familiarity with the
terminology of [RFC7432], [RFC8365] and [RFC7365]."
s1, RT-2: Add reference to RFC 7432 Section 7.
[JORGE] done.
s1, RT-5: Note that this is defined in this draft and point to s3.
[JORGE] done.
s1, MAC-VRF and IP-VRF: The terminology definitions define these as tables,
but
the usage mostly treats them as entities. For example in the BD terminology
defintion; later in para 1 of s2 we have "IP-VRF tables" - which would mean
a
"route table table" if the terminology definition is taken as correct. I
think
they need to be defined as entities and a check of all usages made to ensure
that the wording reflects this.
[JORGE] They are defined as in RFC7432 and RFC4364 respectively. However, to
avoid confusion, I also added that they the instantiation of an EVI or Layer-3
VPN in an NVE/PE.
s1, GARP: Add an illustrative reference to RFC 5227. Arguably since there
isn't
a separate GARP protocol and there is only one usage, it might be better to
remove this and expand the usage in s4.2.
[JORGE] done.
s1: The terms VXLAN, nvGRE and VTEP need to be defined. Also Ethernet A-D
route
(see first comment on s3 below).
[JORGE] done. A-D route should be taken care by the sentence suggesting
familiarity with terms in RFC7432.
s2, last para: This document doesn't provide justification - it wouldn't
exist
if the new route type wasn't justified. Suggest: OLD: Once the need for a
new
EVPN route type is justified, sections 3, 4 and 5 will describe this route
type
and how it is used in some specific use cases. NEW: Then Section 3 describes
the format of an additional option for the BGP EVPN NLRI (see [RFC7432]
Section
7) used to carry advertisements of routes using an IP prefix and introduces
the
concept of an Overlay Index, describing how it is used with recursive
routing
resolution to control the egress path associated with a given IP prefix.
Section 4 describes a set of use cases where the Overlay Index mechanism
solves
certain problems encountered in multi-tenant Data Center implementations.
Section 5 summarises the distinction between the single IP address EVPN
route
type (RT-2, defined in [RFC742]) and the IP Prefix route type defined in
this
document. ENDS
[JORGE] yes, this paragraph is already modified based on the feedback of
another reviewer along the same lines.
s2.1. para 1: Expand TOR acronym (probably needs a terminology entry).
[JORGE] done.
s2.1, para 2:
> If the term Tenant System (TS) is used to designate a physical or
> virtual system
What else would it designate (given the definition in RFC 7365)?
[JORGE] fixed
s2.1, 3rd bullet after Fig 1: s/depending on who the master is./depending on
whichsystem is the master./
[JORGE] fixed
s2.1, para after bullets after Fig 1: Expand ESI on first appearance.
[JORGE] done.
a2.1, last two paras: These contain RFC 2119 keywords (MUST/MAY
respectively)
which cannot be used in a requirements outline. Suggest replacing them with
"need to"/"could" respectively.
[JORGE] fixed
s2.2, para 2: s/section 2.1/Section 2.1/
[JORGE] fixed
s2.2, para 3: s/E.g.:/For example,/, s/1k/1000/ (2 places).
[JORGE] fixed
s2.2, next to last para: Need to expand NLRI on first occurrence.
[JORGE] done
s3, para 1: s/The current/The/ (It won't change in RFC 7432 by definition of
RFCs).
[JORGE] done
s3, after Figure 2:
> Where the route type field can contain one of the following specific
> values (refer to the IANA "EVPN Route Types" registry):
>
> + 1 - Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) route
>
> + 2 - MAC/IP advertisement route
>
> + 3 - Inclusive Multicast Route
>
> + 4 - Ethernet Segment Route
This is not future proof {and it probably won't be accurate by the time this
draft becomes an RFC) and there is no value in repeating it here. Please
delete
it. Note that this removes the expansion of A-D, so will need to add
Ethernet
A-D route to Terminology.
[JORGE] done.
s3, after Figure 2:
OLD:
This document defines an additional route type that IANA has added to
the registry, and will be used for the advertisement of IP Prefixes:
+ 5 - IP Prefix Route
NEW:
This document defines an additional route type (RT-5) in the IANA EVPN Route
Types registry [EVPNRouteTypes], to be used for the advertisement of EVPN
routes using IP Prefixes:
Value: 5
Description: IP Prefix Route
ENDS
The reference [EVPNRouteTypes] points to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/evpn
[JORGE] done.
s3.1, last para: s/Router's/router's/
[JORGE] the extended community is called like that, so I left it that way.
s3.1, extra piece: There are various constraints on the values of fields
in the RT-5 variable data:
- The limitations on the value of IP Prefix length and the total length of
the
data depending on the address family of IP Prefix and GW IP Address. - The
possible values of the fields depending on the Overlay Index type as set
out in
Table 1. The behaviour of receivers if an RT-5 route that breaks these
constraints is received needs to be defined (error behaviour). This might
be a
useful point to emphasise that certain data combinations would imply a
withdrawal of the route rather than an advertisement as described in the
notes
to Table 1 and elsewhere.
[JORGE] added: "certain data combinations would imply a
withdrawal of the route rather than an advertisement as described in the
notes
to Table 1 and elsewhere."
s3.2, para 13: s/sectin 2.2/Section 2.2/
[JORGE] done.
s4.1, para 2: The shorthand SN1/24 which I take it implies subnet SN1 using
a
24 bit prefix, needs to be explained on first usage since SN1 is not
immediately obviously an IP address. Suggest: s?subnet SN1/24?subnet SN1,
which
uses a 24 bit IP prefix (written as SN1/24 in future),?
[JORGE] done.
s4.1, item (3), 1st bullet: VXLAN and VTEP need to be defined (suggested
adding
to terminology above).
[JORGE] done.
s4.2, para 1: s/section 2.1 and 2.2/Sections 2.1 and 2.2/
[JORGE] done.
s4.2, last para: s/GARP message/using a gratuitous ARP REPLY message as
explained in [RFC5227]/ (and remove the GARP erminology entry as suggested
above).
[JORGE] ok, done
s4.3, para 5 and bullet (2): I suspect AD here should be Ethernet A-D. If
not
expand AD on first use - it isn't in terminology (unlike AC). But see
previous
notes on Ethernet A-D.
[JORGE] fixed
s4.3, para 6: s/in a similar way as/in a similar way to/
[JORGE] fixed
s4.3, item (5), bullet 1: Where can I find a definition of the 'MAC
disposition
model' and 'VNI disposition model'- Google didn't help me. :-)
[JORGE] I changed the wording and added reference to RFC7432.
s4.4, para 7 (et seq): For consistency: s/ip-lookup/IP-lookup/g and
s/mac-lookup/MAC-lookup/ (2 places) (and s/ip and mac lookups/IP- and
MAC-lookups/)
[JORGE] fixed
s4.4, para 8: Expansion of SBD is not required as it is in Terminology (and
might be confusing).
[JORGE] fixed
s4.4, para 9:
> has a IRB interfaces that
> connect the SBD to the IP-VRF.
Should this be 'has IRB interafces that connect' or 'has an IRB interface
that
connects'? If the plural is meant then in the next sentence s/The IRB
interface's/Each IRB interface's/ (I assume the IP/MAC addresses would be
different for each IRB but can't be sure).
[JORGE] fixed
s4.4.1, bullets (c) and (d): s/layer-3/layer 3/ (and two further instances
in
s4.4.2 and s4.4.3).
[JORGE] fixed
s4.4.1, last para: s/like in/as in/
[JORGE] fixed
s4.4.3, bullet (c):
OLD:
and there is a requirement to save IP addresses on those interfaces.
NEW:
and there is a requirement to limit the number of IP addresses used.
END
[JORGE] fixed
s4.4.3, last para: s/Interface-ful with SBD IRB model/Interface-ful with
unnumbered SBD IRB model/. PS This paragraph does not appear to add value -
I
assume it is there to some extent for symmetry with ss4.4.1.and 4.4.2.
[JORGE] fixed
s6, para 3: s/any action/any actions/ or maybe, s/any action that end up/any
action that ends up/
[JORGE] fixed
s7: This should be redrafted as a request for allocation rather than a
report
of a previous action. The current allocation is temporary.
[JORGE] fixed
s8.1: idnits reports that EVPN-OVERLAY is now RFC 8365.
[JORGE] fixed
References:
[Gen-art] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10
From: Elwyn Davies
Prev by Date: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC Review of?
draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-13
Next by Date: Re: [Gen-art] [Anima] Gen-art LC Review of?
draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-13
Previous by thread: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10
Next by thread: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04
Index(es):
Date
Thread
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not
imply endorsement by the IETF.
Sent from Samsung tablet._______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
