On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:18 AM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain
> Hi Anoop,
> Thank you for your review. We took all your comments.
> Please see in-line how we are resolving them in rev 07.
> -Original Message-
> From: BESS on
Thanks for your reply. I can see your point about wanting to do service
chaining without the NSH (as I'm sure you're aware, draft-ietf-mpls-sfc is
another example of this), but would you never have the need for service
chain per-packet metadata as it's being used in the SFC WG?
I‘m struggling to make the connection, since draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining
is specifically about how to do service chaining without needing a new protocol
like NSH, so SFF labels would never be used.
In draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining , if MPLS transport were used between
A new meeting session request has just been submitted by mankamana prasad
mishra, a Secretary of the bess working group.
Working Group Name: BGP Enabled ServiceS
Area Name: Routing Area
Session Requester: mankamana mishra
This is fine.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:01 AM Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Anoop, et al.,
> appreciate your check of the final version of the update to the draft. Below
> is the new text as in the working version:
>One use of VXLAN is in data centers interconnecting VMs
Thank you Stephen, Carsten and Heather for your input.
Jorge will be publishing the revised version soon.
On 12/10/18, 2:14 PM, "Stephen Farrell" wrote:
On 10/12/2018 20:41, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> Ekr offered an interesting proposal that would have
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Ready with Issues
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.
Hi Anoop, et al.,
appreciate your check of the final version of the update to the draft.
Below is the new text as in the working version:
One use of VXLAN is in data centers interconnecting VMs of a tenant.
VXLAN addresses requirements of the Layer 2 and Layer 3 data center
thank you for the great text you've contributed. Accepted. I'll update the
working text and publish later today.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:19 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
> +1 to Anoop's comments. I've made similar comment to Greg privately, and
+1 to Anoop's comments. I've made similar comment to Greg privately, and
Anoop's proposed text clears things up.
Reshad (no hat).
On 2018-12-19, 1:54 AM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani"
Yes this captures what I was trying to get added.
Thank you very much for reviewing.
Besides John’s reply to your second comment, about the first comment, based on
the feedback from the reviewers, we changed that sentence to:
The effect of forwarding loops in a Layer-2 network is particularly
severe because of the broadcast
I’ve only seen responses from the draft authors so far. Generally, we would
like to see evidence that a few more people have read the draft and agree it is
a good starting point.
I am therefore extending this WG adoption poll.
If you have not already reviewed the draft, please can you
Thank you very much for your review.
Please see in-line how we are resolving your comments in the next revision (07,
to be published asap).
From: BESS on behalf of Francesca Palombini
Date: Friday, December 14, 2018 at 5:13 PM
Thank you Adrian and Satya.
We added this sentence in the introduction section as suggested by Adrian:
"This document does not intend to update [RFC7432] or [RFC8214] but improve the
behavior of the DF Election on PEs that are upgraded to follow the described
Thank you for your review. We took all your comments.
Please see in-line how we are resolving them in rev 07.
From: BESS on behalf of "Satya Mohanty (satyamoh)"
Date: Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:09 PM
To: Anoop Ghanwani , "firstname.lastname@example.org"
Mail list logo