Hi John,
Thanks for your feedback. I was also thinking along the line of (2). I’ll take
care of it in the next rev. soon.
Cheers,
Ali
From: John Scudder
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM
To: Cisco Employee
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forward...@ietf.org"
, BESS
Thanks, Ali.
Yes, I think this should be explicit in the spec. I’d also suggest being
explicit about what “ignore the rest” means. It could mean one of two things —
1. Don’t pay attention to the extra ones for purposes of computing the local
forwarding table, but store them and propagate them.
Hi John,
Sorry for the delay.
The answer to your 1st question is no and the answer to your 2nd question is
that the receiver should pick the first one in the list and ignore the rest. If
it helps, I can add couple of lines to that affect to the corresponding section.
Cheers,
Ali
From: John
Hi Authors,
I haven’t seen a reply to this message from almost a month ago, trying again.
Even if you are still debating the answer amongst yourselves, it would be
comforting to me to receive a reply to the effect of “we’re still thinking
about this and will get back to you by $date”.
Thanks,
As a co-author, I support WG adoption of this draft and I am not aware of any
relevant IPR.
Regards,
Ali
From: BESS on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 3:43 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR
