Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: (with COMMENT)

2020-09-17 Thread Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 
Jorge

Thank you for the prompt reply: I appreciate the explanation for the ‘missing’ 
bit always nice to hear such stories ;-)

Regards,

-éric

From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 11:39
To: Eric Vyncke , The IESG 
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" , "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia 
- GB)" , "rwe...@akamai.com" 
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: 
(with COMMENT)

Hi Éric,

Thank you very much for reviewing.
Please see in-line below.
Thanks.
Jorge


From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker 
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM
To: The IESG 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org 
, bess-cha...@ietf.org 
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB) , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
, rwe...@akamai.com 
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: (with 
COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags/



--
COMMENT:
--

Thank you for the work put into this document. Even if I mainly rely on the
int-dir review (see below), I quickly reviewed the document and found it very
useful and readable.

Thanks to Ralf Weber who did the INT directory review, at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05-intdir-lc-weber-2020-08-28/

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT and NIT points.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==
-- Section 2  --
For my curiosity sake, why bit 5 of the 'Flags field' is not described? I would
have naively assumed that all flags would be contiguous.
[Jorge] Sure. When flag I was added, “draft-rbickhart-evpn-ip-mac-proxy-adv” 
had been published and there were implementations using bit 5. That’s the 
reason why we had to move the flag I, to avoid collisions.


== NITS ==

-- Section 2 --
While it is specified that the reserved fields are set to 0, the usual 'and
ignored by the receiver' is not present.
[Jorge] good point. I’ll add it in the next revision.


When describing the 'Router Flag', I suggest s/belongs to a router. /belongs to
an IPv6 router./ even if fairly obvious
[Jorge] sure, added it for the next revision.




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-06 - review

2020-09-17 Thread slitkows.ietf 
Hi Authors,

 

Please fix these comments as part of the draft refresh. The draft is expired
now. We need a new version before proceeding.

 

Thanks,

 

 

From: Luc André Burdet  
Sent: mardi 15 septembre 2020 20:32
To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment.auth...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment.cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-06 - review

 

Hi Authors,

 

I have completed a review of -05 and -06.

A lot of the feedback has been incorporated, especially in the -05
significant update. I appreciate the thoroughness, thank you.

 

Please fine below a few final comments based on -06.

These are non-blocking comments seeking clarifications or minor corrections,
and in my view the document is complete and ready to progress.

 

*   There is a new Informative Ref on
draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-00.txt ; I presume this will not
slow down this draft.

 

*   IANA pre-allocation section still requests EC 0x7 (which has been
removed from draft). Can IANA request also be removed/released ?

 

*   Section 5.4 last sentence: s/MAC route/BMAC route/ of the port for
PBB-?

 

*   Section 5.5, bullet 3  should not read “withdraw the previously
advertised MAC”-- but refer to the fact that this “MAC” is really just a
colouring EC of the aggregation route and intent is actually to “withdraw
the previously advertised Type-3 vESI route (ES/EAD for EVPN, or BMAC for
PBB-EVPN)”

 

Nits:

*   Please use &nbhy; to prevent PBB-EVPN breaking on the hyphen (s 3.7
esp.)
*   Last para s. 5: s/baesd/based
*   s. 5.4  s/each vES MAY be color with/colored/

 

Regards,

Luc André

 

Luc André Burdet |  Cisco  |  laburdet.i...@gmail.com
   |  Tel: +1 613 254 4814

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: (with COMMENT)

2020-09-17 Thread Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) 
Hi Éric,

Thank you very much for reviewing.
Please see in-line below.
Thanks.
Jorge


From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker 
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM
To: The IESG 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org 
, bess-cha...@ietf.org 
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB) , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
, rwe...@akamai.com 
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: (with 
COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags/



--
COMMENT:
--

Thank you for the work put into this document. Even if I mainly rely on the
int-dir review (see below), I quickly reviewed the document and found it very
useful and readable.

Thanks to Ralf Weber who did the INT directory review, at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05-intdir-lc-weber-2020-08-28/

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT and NIT points.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==
-- Section 2  --
For my curiosity sake, why bit 5 of the 'Flags field' is not described? I would
have naively assumed that all flags would be contiguous.
[Jorge] Sure. When flag I was added, “draft-rbickhart-evpn-ip-mac-proxy-adv” 
had been published and there were implementations using bit 5. That’s the 
reason why we had to move the flag I, to avoid collisions.


== NITS ==

-- Section 2 --
While it is specified that the reserved fields are set to 0, the usual 'and
ignored by the receiver' is not present.
[Jorge] good point. I’ll add it in the next revision.


When describing the 'Router Flag', I suggest s/belongs to a router. /belongs to
an IPv6 router./ even if fairly obvious
[Jorge] sure, added it for the next revision.



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess