Hi Bruno,
Many thanks for the review comments. We have revised the draft addressing
your comments.
More inline.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:20 AM wrote:
> Hi Stéphane, authors,
>
>
>
> I have not followed the discussions on this document, but I’ll nonetheless
> raise one point regarding the bandwidth community (better safe than
> sorry).
>
> - why has [BGP-LINK-BW] been moved to informational reference while its
> reading seem mandatory?
>
[NM]: There was a leftover reference to this in one of the sections that
has been fixed now to use new EVPN EC. With this, reference to
[BGP-LINK-BW] is purely informational (as was intended).
> - A new EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community is defined, but I could not
> find its specification. I guess that this is the same format as
> [BGP-LINK-BW] but transitive. Could this be explicitly stated?
>
[NM]: clarified in section 4.
> - [BGP-LINK-BW] advertises the bandwidth in unit of bytes (not bits!) per
> second. Could the unit of the new EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community be
> also clearly spelled out? Especially give the history on this (cf below).
> Also in order to avoid misleading the readers could the examples use the
> correct unit (vs bits per seconds as writen)
>
[NM]: done.
> - 10 years ago or so, I had raised a similar point (distinction between
> bits and bytes) on [BGP-LINK-BW] in the IDR WG. And it turned out that 1
> major implementation had implemented and deployed “bytes per second” as per
> the spec, while another implementation had implemented and deployed “bits
> per second” which is the typical unit of link bandwidth. Given the
> deployments, none was willing to change its implementation as it would be a
> non-backward compatible change with themselves. What’s the status on this?
> Could we have an implementation status on this?
>
[NM]: I don't have this information. Perhaps someone else could comment.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards,
>
> --Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> *From**:* BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *
> slitkows.i...@gmail.com
> *Sent:* Monday, May 3, 2021 9:21 AM
> *To:* bess@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
>
>
>
> Hi WG,
>
>
>
>
>
> We got final updates from authors on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb.
>
>
>
> I'm opening a new short Working Group Last Call (to be closed on 5/10) to
>
> get any last comments before moving to the next step.
>
> However, the document having normative references to EVPN PREF DF, and
> PER-MCAST-FLOW-DF, the draft will not be sent to IESG until these drafts are
> ready.
>
>
>
> Feel free to send comments to the list before next Monday.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephane
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
> this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
