[bess] FW: Directorate Early Reviews

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

A heads-up that the Routing ADs have announced the following new policy 
applicable to documents that we request publication as RFCs.

Regards

Matthew

From: Andrew Alston - IETF 
Date: Wednesday, 12 October 2022 at 08:29
To: rtg-cha...@ietf.org 
Subject: Directorate Early Reviews
Hi All,

Following the helpful feedback received during chair’s meeting and further 
discussion between the routing AD’s, we would like to propose the following:


  1.  We will require early directorate reviews before documents come to the 
AD’s to enter the publication queue
  2.  We suggest that these reviews are done either in parallel with the 
working group last call or between the working group last call and publication 
request
 *   In the case of the early directorate review being done in parallel 
with the last call, it is suggested to use this approach only if there is 
indication that the document is stable, since we ask that the early review is 
done on the version of the document that will be received by the AD’s at the 
time of requested publication.
  3.  While we require early review from the routing directorate, it is in the 
chair’s discretion if they wish to request early review from other 
directorates.  As a guideline, we recommend a security directorate review in 
addition to the routing area directorate.

We are still discussing all the feedback (and there was a lot of substantive 
feedback), so expect more from us in the coming weeks regarding the rest of the 
feedback.

Thanks

Andrew Alston (On Behalf of the Routing AD’s)




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

Re: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email closes this WG last call. I believe there is consensus to publish 
the draft.

I am still missing one IPR acknowledgement form one co-author and will not 
progress the draft until I have heard from every co-author.

Regards

Matthew

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Date: Monday, 26 September 2022 at 12:05
To: bess@ietf.org 
Subject: WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05
This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as an Informational RFC.

This poll runs until the 10th October 2022

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.
There are currently two IPR disclosures.


Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1]  
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage>



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

[bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as an Informational RFC.

This poll runs until the 10th October 2022

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.
There are currently two IPR disclosures.


Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1]  
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05



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

[bess] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-05

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors

As is customary, please find below my document shepherd review of this draft.

The comments are mainly of an editorial nature or suggest improvements to aid 
readability.

Please treat these comments (prepended with MB>) as you would any other working 
group last call comments.

Best regards

Matthew

===

  Fast Recovery for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-05

Abstract

   Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) solution provides Designated

MB> /Ethernet/The Ethernet

   Forwarder election procedures for multihomed Ethernet Segments.
   These procedures have been enhanced further by applying Highest
   Random Weight (HRW) Algorithm for Designated Forwarded election in
   order to avoid unnecessary DF status changes upon a failure.  This
   draft improves these procedures by providing a fast Designated

MB> /draft/document

   Forwarder (DF) election upon recovery of the failed link or node
   associated with the multihomed Ethernet Segment.  The solution is
   independent of number of EVIs associated with that Ethernet Segment

MB> /of number/of the number

   and it is performed via a simple signaling between the recovered PE
   and each of the other PEs in the multihoming group.

[...]

1.  Introduction

   Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) solution [RFC7432] is

MB> /Ethernet/The Ethernet

   becoming pervasive in data center (DC) applications for Network
   Virtualization Overlay (NVO) and DC interconnect (DCI) services, and
   in service provider (SP) applications for next generation virtual
   private LAN services.



[...]

   The EVPN specification [RFC7432] describes DF election procedures for

MB> I think you just need to say [RFC7432] describes...



   multihomed Ethernet Segments.  These procedures are enhanced further
   in [RFC8584] by applying Highest Random Weight Algorithm for DF
   election in order to avoid DF status change unnecessarily upon a link
   or node failure associated with the multihomed Ethernet Segment.

MB> I found the above hard to parse. Maybe replace it with:
"These procedures are enhanced further
   in [RFC8584] by applying Highest Random Weight Algorithm for DF
   election in order to avoid unnecessary DF status changes upon a link
   or node failure associated with the multihomed Ethernet Segment."

   [...]

1.1.  Terminology

   Provider Edge (PE):  A device that sits in the boundary of Provider
  and Customer networks and performs encap/decap of data from L2 to
  L3 and vice-versa.

MB> Not sure you need to define PE as it is a well known term, but in any case 
I think
Your definition differs from ones I could find I previous RFCs. Maybe you can 
just delete it.

   Designated Forwarder (DF):  A PE that is currently forwarding
  (encapsulating/decapsulating) traffic for a given VLAN in and out
  of a site.

2.  Challenges with Existing Solution

   In EVPN technology, multiple PE devices have the ability to encap and
   decap data belonging to the same VLAN.  In certain situations, this
   may cause L2 duplicates and even loops if there is a momentary
   overlap of forwarding roles between two or more PE devices, leading
   to broadcast storms.

   EVPN [RFC7432] currently uses timer based synchronization among PE
   devices in redundancy group that can result in duplications (and even
   loops) because of multiple DFs if the timer is too short or
   blackholing if the timer is too long.

   Using split-horizon filtering (Section 8.3 of [RFC7432]) can prevent
   loops (but not duplicates), however if there are overlapping DFs in

MB> I suggest you split the sentence to make it more readable:
"...(but not duplicates). However, if there are..."


   two different sites at the same time for the same VLAN, the site
   identifier will be different upon re-entry of the packet and hence
   the split-horizon check will fail, leading to L2 loops.

[...]


   However, upon PE insertion or port bring-up (recovery event), HRW

MB> Do you mean "...or port bring-up following a recovery event,"?

   also cannot help as a transfer of DF role to the newly inserted
   device/port must occur while the old DF is still active.

 +-+
  +-+| |
  | || |
/ |PE1  || |   +-+
   /  | ||  MPLS/  |   | |---CE3
  /   +-+|  VxLAN/ |   | PE3 |
 CE1 -   |  Cloud  |   | |
  \   +-+| |---| |
   \  | || |   +-+
\ | PE2 || |
  | || |
  +-+| |
 +-+


  Figu

Re: [bess] WGLC Request for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Linda

Yes, that is correct. We have not forgotten about it. We have had a long list 
of drafts for adoption and WG last call to clear.

We plan to start things moving again after IETF 114, so please watch out for an 
IPR check and WG LC for this draft.

Matthew

From: Linda Dunbar 
Date: Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 03:28
To: bess-cha...@ietf.org 
Cc: bess@ietf.org 
Subject: RE: WGLC Request for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05

Matthew and Stephane,

At the IETF113  BESS session, your slides stated that  
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage is the candidate for WG LC.
Can you please let us know what actions we need to take to move the draft to 
WGLC?

Thank you very much,
Linda

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 10:04 AM
To: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WGLC Request for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-04

Matthew and Stephane,

Can you please give a feedback on how to move forward?

Thank you
Linda

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 10:46 AM
To: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WGLC Request for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-04

Matthew and Stephane,

Can you give some guidance on how to move the draft to WGLC? Is there anything 
authors can do? It has been 3 months since we sent the WGLC request.

Thank you very much,
Linda Dunbar



From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:44 PM
To: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: WGLC Request for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-04

Matthew and Stephane,

We think the draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-04 is ready for WGLC.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/

The document demonstrates how the BGP-based control plane is used for 
large-scale SDWAN overlay networks with little manual intervention.
It is very useful for the industry.

Thank you,

Linda Dunbar

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

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Ali, WG,

Thank you.

I think there is consensus to publish the draft as a standards track RFC.

Please watch for my shepherd’s review.

Regards

Matthew

From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) 
Date: Wednesday, 13 July 2022 at 20:01
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) , 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recov...@ietf.org 
, bess@ietf.org 
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org 
Subject: Re: WGLC, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03
I support publication of this document and I am not aware of any IPR that 
hasn’t been disclosed.

Cheers,
Ali

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 at 5:58 AM
To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recov...@ietf.org 
, bess@ietf.org 
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org 
Subject: WGLC, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03
Hi WG,

This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03 [1].

This poll runs until Monday 14th February 2022.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.
There is currently no IPR disclosed.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2]. Please indicate 
if you are aware of any implementations.

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane

[1] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03 - Fast Recovery for EVPN DF 
Election<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery/>
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

Re: [bess] Review request for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

IDR WG

Please note that the deadline for comments is Friday 4th March, NOT 26th Feb.

Matthew


From: Idr  on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 

Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 6:52 pm
To: i...@ietf.org
Cc: ; draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] Review request for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11

IDR Working Group

This draft has completed working group last call in the BESS working group and 
is currently being reviewed by the IESG.

We would appreciate review and comments by participants in the IDR working 
group.

The latest version of the draft is available here:  
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11 - SRv6 BGP based Overlay 
Services<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/>

Please send any comments in reply to this thread by 26th February 2022.

Thank you,

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

[bess] Review request for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

IDR Working Group

This draft has completed working group last call in the BESS working group and 
is currently being reviewed by the IESG.

We would appreciate review and comments by participants in the IDR working 
group.

The latest version of the draft is available here:  
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11 - SRv6 BGP based Overlay 
Services

Please send any comments in reply to this thread by 26th February 2022.

Thank you,

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

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi John

I’ll send a note to the IDR list requesting review - is a couple of weeks 
sufficient?



Matthew


From: John Scudder 
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 5:29:57 PM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org 
; bess-cha...@ietf.org 
; The IESG ; bess@ietf.org 
; idr-cha...@ietf.org 
Subject: Re: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with 
DISCUSS and COMMENT)

After sleeping on it I was too hasty in saying “water under the bridge” and 
moving on.

I’d like to request that you correct the oversight and seek input from IDR — 
what would have happened if the document had been cross-WGLC’d with IDR. 
Possibly this will result in no input (that happens sometimes) of course. But, 
if you start now, I don’t anticipate it will turn into the long pole for moving 
the document forward.

Thanks,

—John

On Feb 17, 2022, at 2:15 PM, John Scudder 
mailto:jgs=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>> 
wrote:


Thanks, Matthew. I didn’t think of searching for it under the individual 
submission name; when I read “cross-reviewed” I interpreted that as WGLC, not 
WG adoption.

It looks to me as though there was no reply to the notification message you 
reference, do you agree? (Of course there might have been people who commented 
on the BESS list, but I don’t see anything cc’d to IDR.)

It does seem to me as though, considering the unusually close association 
between this spec and an active IDR draft, it would have made sense to 
cross-WGLC it, including a specific pointer to the overlap. I mean, I 
acknowledge that might have come to nothing since there’s considerable overlap 
between the groups — but it’s not universal overlap. Anyway, it’s water under 
the bridge now.

I’ve added the IDR chairs to the cc just in case any of them want to comment.

Regards,

—John

On Feb 17, 2022, at 5:52 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>> wrote:



Hi John

Regarding comment (1), we sent a notice to the IDR WG at WG Adoption time:

[Idr] FW: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 
(ietf.org<http://ietf.org>)


Regards

Matthew

From: John Scudder via Datatracker mailto:nore...@ietf.org>>
Date: Wednesday, 16 February 2022 at 21:39
To: The IESG mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
Cc: 
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org>
 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org>>,
 bess-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org> 
mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org>>, 
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, 
Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>, Bocci, Matthew 
(Nokia - GB) mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Subject: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with 
DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: Discuss

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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Xv1IvUswjT0bKzhaKlbofwb5-5YGQ1hNoNs2zhAoPwPpnP-yYL6GDMMUd9RiSA$
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Xv1IvUswjT0bKzhaKlbofwb5-5YGQ1hNoNs2zhAoPwPpnP-yYL6GDMPLJdcbPg$



--
DISCUSS:
--

1. The shepherd writeup for this document says “It also received an RTG DIR
review and cross-reviewed with the IDR working group”. Searching in my IDR
inbox and the IDR mailing list archives, I don’t find any sign of the
cross-review — can you please point me to it?

2. One area of concern I would have hoped IDR might have looked into is, the
document makes a creative use of the MPLS Label field of the NLRI to carry the
Function part of the SID. This means the SID is effectively split across the
NLRI and the Prefix-SID attribute. What are the potential error modes if the
Prefix-SID attribute should be lost from the route, while the NLRI is retained?

(An obvious way of addressing this particular concern would be to define a new
NLRI type with the desired semantics, instead of creatively repurposing fields
within an existing NLRI type contrary to their definitions. Such an NLRI type
would, for example, presumably state in its specification that if it was
received without an accompanying Prefix-SID attribute, that would constitute an
error.)

3. As Warren Kumari points out in his DISCUSS, “leaks happen”. Subsequent
discussion tu

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi John

Regarding comment (1), we sent a notice to the IDR WG at WG Adoption time:

[Idr] FW: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 
(ietf.org)<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5KVXxHnyev4_IPEjLVHJmH4r1v8/>


Regards

Matthew

From: John Scudder via Datatracker 
Date: Wednesday, 16 February 2022 at 21:39
To: The IESG 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org 
, bess-cha...@ietf.org 
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB) , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 

Subject: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with 
DISCUSS and COMMENT)
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: Discuss

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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/



--
DISCUSS:
--

1. The shepherd writeup for this document says “It also received an RTG DIR
review and cross-reviewed with the IDR working group”. Searching in my IDR
inbox and the IDR mailing list archives, I don’t find any sign of the
cross-review — can you please point me to it?

2. One area of concern I would have hoped IDR might have looked into is, the
document makes a creative use of the MPLS Label field of the NLRI to carry the
Function part of the SID. This means the SID is effectively split across the
NLRI and the Prefix-SID attribute. What are the potential error modes if the
Prefix-SID attribute should be lost from the route, while the NLRI is retained?

(An obvious way of addressing this particular concern would be to define a new
NLRI type with the desired semantics, instead of creatively repurposing fields
within an existing NLRI type contrary to their definitions. Such an NLRI type
would, for example, presumably state in its specification that if it was
received without an accompanying Prefix-SID attribute, that would constitute an
error.)

3. As Warren Kumari points out in his DISCUSS, “leaks happen”. Subsequent
discussion turned quickly to the assertion that no, they don’t, in VPN address
families. Let’s accept that claim for the sake of conversation. It’s still the
case that sometimes (often?) routes are distributed from VPN address families
into the Global Internet table. When this is done, by default, all the path
attributes come along for the ride. Anyone who thinks this is just a
hypothetical case might want to look back to (for example) significant network
outages that were caused around a decade ago by leakage of BGP Attribute 128
(ATTR_SET, RFC 6368) into the global Internet.

The SIDs contained in these if-they-were-to-leak routes potentially give an
attacker a means of directing packets into a VPN customer’s internal network.

4. Speaking of Warren’s DISCUSS, the shepherd’s writeup indicates “solid [WG]
consensus”; however, there doesn’t seem to be consensus even amongst the
authors as to whether Sections 5.3 and 5.4 are appropriate. This is a fairly
fundamental disagreement! An illustration of the disagreement is
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/K1JKxGn19BXALs3rUzUAaGTZi0Y/:

“So I can see why some people may have thought oh since transport in SRv6 comes
for free let's load it with services in an attribute and be done. Yes I can see
that flattening this make it potentially easier (one less SAFI to enable), *but
I am not sure we have reached a broad agreement here.* This comes as a
consequence of moving service prefixes from MP_REACH_NLRI (perhaps new format
and new SAFI) to an attribute.”

(Emphasis added.)

It's of course possible for an author to be in the rough as regards consensus,
just as any other WG contributor, but it's a little unusual, and this
disagreement doesn't even seem to have been previously aired. For this reason,
I have to question the strength of the consensus behind this document, and ask
the WG chairs to weigh in regarding whether consensus on at least this point
needs to be checked before we proceed forward.

5. Finally, I have to question the length of the author list. As I’m sure you
know, the guidance is to limit author lists to no more than five, other than
under unusual circumstances. I would have expected to find an explanation of
the circumstances around the author list of this document in the shepherd
writeup; there is none. (It’s a specific check item in Guidelines to Authors of
Internet-Drafts, https://www.ietf.org/how/ids/guidelines/)

The easiest way to resolve this would be to trim the author list per the
suggestion

Re: [bess] ID-Nits for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi Authors

While going through this I have a couple of other comments:

Please can you clean up the use of RFC2119 language, in particular capitalizing 
SHOULD, MUST etc where appropriate. For example, I think the following in 
Section 4.3 should be corrected:


Ethernet Tag field value in EVPN Ethernet AD Sub-TLV, should be set

   according to the context:



   o  For per-ES context, the Ethernet Tag field in the sub-TLV must be

  set to the reserved MAX-ET value 
[RFC7432<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7432>]



   o  For per-EVI context, the Ethernet Tag field in the sub-TLV must be

  set to the non-reserved value


Thanks
Matthew

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Date: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 16:00
To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org 

Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org 
Subject: ID-Nits for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping
Hi Authors

I am finally doing the document shepherds write up for this draft. ID Nits 
throws up a few warnings, which I would appreciate if you could fix now before 
I request publication:

https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-06.txt


Thanks

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

[bess] WGLC, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi WG,

This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03 [1].

This poll runs until Monday 14th February 2022.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.
There is currently no IPR disclosed.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2]. Please indicate 
if you are aware of any implementations.

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane

[1] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03 - Fast Recovery for EVPN DF 
Election
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Thanks Ajay

There is consensus to adopt this draft as a BESS WG draft.

Authors: Please republish the draft as draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz-00.

Best regards

Matthew

From: Ajay Kini 
Date: Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 13:21
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Cc: Akshay Gattani , Lukas Krattiger (lkrattig) 
, bess@ietf.org , 
draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-...@ietf.org 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].
Hi Matthew,

I am not aware of any relevant undisclosed IPRs that apply to this draft.

Thanks
Ajay
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021, 4:55 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Ashkay,

Thank you for your response.

Strictly, I need a response from each individual author, otherwise I will have 
to ask the WG if they are happy to proceed.

Ajay, please can you confirm whether or not you are aware of any undisclosed 
IPR?

Thanks

Matthew

From: Akshay Gattani mailto:aks...@arista.com>>
Date: Friday, 3 December 2021 at 08:10
To: Ajay Kini mailto:ajk...@arista.com>>
Cc: Lukas Krattiger (lkrattig) mailto:lkrat...@cisco.com>>, 
Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>, 
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, 
draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-...@ietf.org>
 
mailto:draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].
To our knowledge, the authors from Arista are not aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPRs that apply to this draft document.

Thank you

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 3:04 AM Ajay Kini 
mailto:ajk...@arista.com>> wrote:
I support adoption of this draft as a co-author.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 2:10 PM Akshay Gattani 
mailto:aks...@arista.com>> wrote:
I fully support adoption of this draft as a co-author.

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:27 PM Lukas Krattiger (lkrattig) 
mailto:lkrat...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Good Day,
I fully support the adoption of this draft
Kind Regards
-Lukas

On Sep 7, 2021, at 5:41 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>> wrote:

Hello,

This email begins a two-week WG adoption poll for 
draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on September 21st 2021.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03/


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

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

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Ashkay,

Thank you for your response.

Strictly, I need a response from each individual author, otherwise I will have 
to ask the WG if they are happy to proceed.

Ajay, please can you confirm whether or not you are aware of any undisclosed 
IPR?

Thanks

Matthew

From: Akshay Gattani 
Date: Friday, 3 December 2021 at 08:10
To: Ajay Kini 
Cc: Lukas Krattiger (lkrattig) , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB) , bess@ietf.org , 
draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-...@ietf.org 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].
To our knowledge, the authors from Arista are not aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPRs that apply to this draft document.

Thank you

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 3:04 AM Ajay Kini 
mailto:ajk...@arista.com>> wrote:
I support adoption of this draft as a co-author.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 2:10 PM Akshay Gattani 
mailto:aks...@arista.com>> wrote:
I fully support adoption of this draft as a co-author.

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:27 PM Lukas Krattiger (lkrattig) 
mailto:lkrat...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Good Day,
I fully support the adoption of this draft
Kind Regards
-Lukas


On Sep 7, 2021, at 5:41 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>> wrote:

Hello,

This email begins a two-week WG adoption poll for 
draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on September 21st 2021.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03/


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

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

Re: [bess] A question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors

I will hold off requesting publication until these questions have been 
addressed.

Regards

Matthew

From: Alexander Vainshtein 
Date: Monday, 22 November 2021 at 20:57
To: Parag Jain (paragj) 
Cc: bess@ietf.org , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping@ietf.org 

Subject: Re: A question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping
Parag,
Sure.
Will be waiting for your response.

Regards,
Sasha

Get Outlook for Android

From: Parag Jain (paragj) 
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 9:45:33 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
Cc: bess@ietf.org ; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping@ietf.org 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: A question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping


Hi Sacha



Missed your earlier email.



Thanks for following up. Let me get back to you.



Thanks

Parag



From: Alexander Vainshtein 
Date: Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:18 AM
To: "Parag Jain (paragj)" 
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping@ietf.org" 

Subject: RE: A question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping



Parag and all,

A gentle reminder...



Regards,

Sasha



Office: +972-39266302

Cell:  +972-549266302

Email:   alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com



From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2021 12:44 PM
To: Parag Jain (paragj) 
Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping@ietf.org
Subject: RE: A question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping



Parag, and all,

A couple of additional questions dealing with the definition of  the EVPN AD 
sub-TLV in Section 4.3 of the 
draft.

  1.  I assume that this sub-TLV can be used to differentiate between per-ES 
and per-EVI EVPN Ethernet Auto-Discovery (Type 1) routes by the value of 
Ethernet Tag:

 *   For per-ES EVPN Type 1 routes the Ethernet Tag field in the sub-TLV 
must be set to the reserved MAX-ET value
 *   For per-EVI EVPN Type 1 routes the Ethernet Tag field in the sub-TLV 
must be set to the non-reserved value

If this assumption is correct, it would be nice to have this explicitly 
specified in the draft

  1.  There no references to the EVPN AD sub-TLV in the draft. Instead, there 
are two references to the Ethernet AD sub-TLV

 *   In the last para of Section 6.2.1 when it is included in the Target 
FEC TLV of an LSP Ping request while an ESI label advertised by the 
corresponding remote PE for the MH ES identified by the ESI value in the 
sub-TLV is included in the label stack. My guess is that in this case this 
sub-TLV refers to the per-ES EVPN Type 1 route – can you please confirm?
 *   In Section 6.3 when this sub-TLV it is included in the Target FEC TLV 
of an LSP Ping request while the label stack includes the aliasing label 
advertised by the specific MAC-VRF of the remote PE for the MH ES identified by 
the ESI value in the sub-TLV is included in the label stack. My guess is that 
in this case this sub-TLV refers to the per-EVI EVPN Type 1 route – can you 
please confirm?

  1.  Section 8.2 of RFC 
7432
 specifies that a per-ES EVPN Type 1 route for a given multi-homed ES may be 
advertises multiple times with different RD values because it may carry more 
Route Targets than could be fit into a single BGP Update message. Can you 
please explain which RD value should be used in the EVPN AD sub-TLV if it is 
used in association with a per-ES EVPN Type 1 route in (2b) above?



Regards,

Sasha



Office: +972-39266302

Cell:  +972-549266302

Email:   alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com



From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2021 12:03 PM
To: Parag Jain (paragj) mailto:par...@cisco.com>>
Cc: bess@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping@ietf.org
Subject: RE: A question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping
Importance: High



Parag,

Lots of thanks for a prompt response.



At the same time your response does not resolve my concerns, since I have 
failed to understand why in Example#1 you propose responding with “return code 
3 - Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth” while in Example#2 
you propose responding with “return code corresponding to The FEC exists on the 
PE and the behavior is to drop the packet because of Split Horizon Filtering”.



In both cases a BUM packet received by PE-1 with the label stack described 
would not be discarded:

  *   In example 1 it would be sent towards CE-2 and CE-4 (but not to CE-2 
because PE-1 is not the DF on MH ES-1)
  *   In example 2 it still would be sent towards CE-4 (because it is a 
single-homed CE).



In any case I think that explicit definition of the scenarios in which any of 
the new return codes sh

Re: [bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors

Please can you respond to Anoop’s comments.

Thanks

Matthew


From: Anoop Ghanwani 
Date: Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 19:27
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Cc: bess@ietf.org , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org 

Subject: Re: [bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
*draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*
I had a couple of comments that I would appreciate a response on.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/hMvrFYS1LkUPekW1p86Culd3NJY/

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 8:42 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>> wrote:
WG

I believe there is consensus to publish this document.  Please look out for the 
shepherd’s review.

Thanks

Matthew

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 10:00
To: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org>
 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org>>
Subject: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
*draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*
Folks

Please note this WG last call is for version 03 of the draft (not 02 as stated 
in the subject line of the email)

The link to the draft is: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 - EVPN control plane 
for Geneve<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve/>

Apologies for the error.

Matthew

From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 09:56
To: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org>
 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org>>
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02
This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC.

This poll runs until the 15th October 2021

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.
There are currently no IPR disclosures.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1]  draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02 - EVPN control plane for 
Geneve<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve/>
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

Re: [bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

I believe there is consensus to publish this document.  Please look out for the 
shepherd’s review.

Thanks

Matthew

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Date: Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 10:00
To: bess@ietf.org 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org 
Subject: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
*draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*
Folks

Please note this WG last call is for version 03 of the draft (not 02 as stated 
in the subject line of the email)

The link to the draft is: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 - EVPN control plane 
for Geneve<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve/>

Apologies for the error.

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 

Date: Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 09:56
To: bess@ietf.org 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org 
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02
This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC.

This poll runs until the 15th October 2021

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.
There are currently no IPR disclosures.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1]  draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02 - EVPN control plane for 
Geneve<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve/>
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Thank you. I believe we have consensus to publish the document. Please look out 
for the document shepherd write-up and publication request.

Best regards

Matthew

From: Dikshit, Saumya 
Date: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 05:14
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) , Greg Mirsky 
, BESS 
Cc: Greg Mirsky , sajassi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org 
, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org 
, John E Drake 

Subject: RE: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
Hi Mathew,

+1 on going ahead with this draft.
As Greg suggested in the other thread, we can draft an extension to include the 
new proposal.

Thanks
Saumya.

From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB)
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:17 PM
To: Greg Mirsky ; BESS 
Cc: Greg Mirsky ; sajassi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org; John E Drake 

Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Greg

Thank you

I am good to close the implementation poll, but I believe there may be some 
outstanding comments to address from Saumya on the other thread. Please can you 
look at that?

Thanks

Matthew

From: Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:41
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>, BESS 
mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: John E Drake 
mailto:jdrake=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>,
 sajassi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:sajassi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> 
mailto:sajassi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>,
 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>
 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>>,
 Greg Mirsky mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
Hi Matthew and BESS WG,
I was informed that our product does support using most of the sub-TLVs defined 
in the draft. Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding 
the implementation.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 2:36 PM 
mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>> wrote:

Hi Matthew,

my apologies for the belated response:

  1.  I am still awaiting a response from our product team on whether any part 
of the draft is supported.
  2.  I concur with Ali. LSP Ping is a broadly used OAM tool detecting and 
localizing failures, including discrepancies between the data and control 
planes. The document defines necessary Target FEC sub-TLVs for EVPN and MVPN 
cases.



Regards,

Greg Mirsky



Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D 
Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division


[cid:image001.gif@01D7C01D.0563F360]
[cid:image002.gif@01D7C01D.0563F360]
E: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com<mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/>
Original Mail
Sender: JohnEDrake
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi);Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB);bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2021/08/31 11:34
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Hi,

I agree with Ali.

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 9:54 PM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Matthew,

Some of the co-authors are on PTO and I couldn’t reach them (typical of the 
month of August). So, I’d like to get a bit more extension.

Regarding the two questions below:

  1.  My company hasn’t implemented it.
  2.  I do think that we should process with the publication as it describes 
how LSP ping can be used to detect data-plane failures for various EVPN 
functionality including aliasing, split-horizon filtering using ESI label, 
multicast, l2-unicast, l3-unicast, IRB, etc. For MPLS transport tunnel, I am 
not aware of any other tool/draft that allows us to do data-plane failure 
detection. Thus, I think it is important to proceed with its publications.

Still I’d like to hear from other co-authors and other people in this community.

Regards,
Ali

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Date: Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:25 AM
To: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>
 
m

Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Greg

Thank you

I am good to close the implementation poll, but I believe there may be some 
outstanding comments to address from Saumya on the other thread. Please can you 
look at that?

Thanks

Matthew

From: Greg Mirsky 
Date: Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:41
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) , BESS 
Cc: John E Drake , 
sajassi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org , 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org 
, Greg Mirsky 
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
Hi Matthew and BESS WG,
I was informed that our product does support using most of the sub-TLVs defined 
in the draft. Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding 
the implementation.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 2:36 PM 
mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>> wrote:

Hi Matthew,

my apologies for the belated response:

  1.  I am still awaiting a response from our product team on whether any part 
of the draft is supported.
  2.  I concur with Ali. LSP Ping is a broadly used OAM tool detecting and 
localizing failures, including discrepancies between the data and control 
planes. The document defines necessary Target FEC sub-TLVs for EVPN and MVPN 
cases.



Regards,

Greg Mirsky



Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D 
Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division


[cid:image001.gif@01D7BF4E.0D139360]
[cid:image002.gif@01D7BF4E.0D139360]
E: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com<mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/>
Original Mail
Sender: JohnEDrake
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi);Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB);bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2021/08/31 11:34
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Hi,

I agree with Ali.

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 9:54 PM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Matthew,

Some of the co-authors are on PTO and I couldn’t reach them (typical of the 
month of August). So, I’d like to get a bit more extension.

Regarding the two questions below:

  1.  My company hasn’t implemented it.
  2.  I do think that we should process with the publication as it describes 
how LSP ping can be used to detect data-plane failures for various EVPN 
functionality including aliasing, split-horizon filtering using ESI label, 
multicast, l2-unicast, l3-unicast, IRB, etc. For MPLS transport tunnel, I am 
not aware of any other tool/draft that allows us to do data-plane failure 
detection. Thus, I think it is important to proceed with its publications.

Still I’d like to hear from other co-authors and other people in this community.

Regards,
Ali

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Date: Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:25 AM
To: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>
 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
WG and Authors

Unfortunately I have not seen any responses indicating that there are any known 
implementations of this draft. I also did not see any responses to Stephane's 
question if we should proceed regardless.

As per the BESS WG implementation policy 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RoQdN1xrngG7wEPSC6AqHesQtzGvBMP82cosyeO0PYZjTGA5JLyFmli4v8nM3No$>),
 please can you respond to this email indicating either:

- That you are aware of any implementations (ideally providing some details)
- If you are not aware of any, if you think the WG should proceed with the 
draft's publication and why.

I will close this poll on 25th August 2021.

Regards

Matthew


On 14/06/2021, 17:38, "BESS on behalf of 
internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>" 
mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20internet-dra...@ietf.org>>
 wrote:


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.

Title 

[bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Folks

Please note this WG last call is for version 03 of the draft (not 02 as stated 
in the subject line of the email)

The link to the draft is: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 - EVPN control plane 
for Geneve<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve/>

Apologies for the error.

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 

Date: Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 09:56
To: bess@ietf.org 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org 
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02
This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC.

This poll runs until the 15th October 2021

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.
There are currently no IPR disclosures.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1]  draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02 - EVPN control plane for 
Geneve<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve/>
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

[bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC.

This poll runs until the 15th October 2021

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.
There are currently no IPR disclosures.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1]  draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02 - EVPN control plane for 
Geneve
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

[bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hello,

This email begins a two-week WG adoption poll for 
draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on September 21st 2021.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03/


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

[bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG and Authors

Unfortunately I have not seen any responses indicating that there are any known 
implementations of this draft. I also did not see any responses to Stephane's 
question if we should proceed regardless.

As per the BESS WG implementation policy 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw/), 
please can you respond to this email indicating either:

- That you are aware of any implementations (ideally providing some details)
- If you are not aware of any, if you think the WG should proceed with the 
draft's publication and why.

I will close this poll on 25th August 2021.

Regards

Matthew
 

On 14/06/2021, 17:38, "BESS on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" 
 wrote:


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.

Title   : LSP-Ping Mechanisms for EVPN and PBB-EVPN
Authors : Parag Jain
  Samer Salam
  Ali Sajassi
  Sami Boutros
  Greg Mirsky
Filename: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05.txt
Pages   : 15
Date: 2021-06-14

Abstract:
   LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and
   Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks.  This document
   describes mechanisms for detecting data-plane failures using LSP Ping
   in MPLS based EVPN and PBB-EVPN networks.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/

There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


___
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

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors and Working Group

Please can you indicate if you are aware of any implementations.

Regards

Matthew

From: 松田 卓 
Date: Wednesday, 2 June 2021 at 01:15
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Cc: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" , 
"bess@ietf.org" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacfl...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "Nagaraj, Kiran (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 

Subject: Re: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-02


As co-author, I support this document for publication as standards track RFC.
Not aware of any related IPR.

Thanks.


Taku Matsuda
taku.mats...@g.softbank.co.jp<mailto:taku.mats...@g.softbank.co.jp>


2021年6月2日(水) 1:10 Nagaraj, Kiran (Nokia - US/Mountain View) 
mailto:kiran.naga...@nokia.com>>:
I support this draft as a co-author. I am not aware of any IPR related to this.

Thanks
Kiran


From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) 
mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 7:30 AM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Cc: 
draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacfl...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacfl...@ietf.org>;
 bess-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-02

As co-author, I support this document for publication as standards track RFC.
Not aware of any related IPR.

Thanks.
Jorge

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 2:48 PM
To: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: 
draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacfl...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacfl...@ietf.org>
 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacfl...@ietf.org>>,
 bess-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org> 
mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org>>
Subject: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-02
This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-02  [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC.

This poll runs until the 15th June 2021.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.
There are currently no IPR disclosures.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1] draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-02 - PBB-EVPN ISID-based 
CMAC-Flush<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush/>
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw



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

[bess] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors,

I am the document shepherd for this draft. As is customary, please find below 
by review. Please treat these comment as you would any other working group last 
call comments.

Best regards

Matthew

General Comments.


Implementation status: Please can you indicate if there are any known 
implementations of this draft, as per 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

I think the document is readable and useful. I have a few comments below. These 
are mostly related to the clarity of the text or are minor spelling/grammar 
issues that would be better to resolve before we forward the document to the 
IESG. However, there are some more significant issues related to the clarity of 
the specification.

As a general high level comment, there is a lack of RFC2119 language used in 
the body of the document. For example, in section 5 you say that “packets are 
encapsulated” but I think it would be better to use mandatory language such as 
“packets MUST be encapsulated”. Elsewhere, it is not clear what the normative 
behavior is. Please go through and apply terms such as “MUST’, ‘SHOULD’ etc as 
needed. Maybe look at RFC4379 for an example of how to use this terminology for 
LSP ping when applied to a service.

The mechanisms in this draft are presumably based on RFC4379 / RFC8029 
(Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures), and I am 
assuming that an implementation must follow the basic rules in that RFC but use 
the EVPN identifiers in the target FEC stack. If so, perhaps you should make 
that clear.

There is a normative down reference to 
“draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11”. This will delay the publication 
of the draft.

Please also check the use of the definite article (a, an, the, etc) in the 
draft. There are a few cases where it is used unnecessarily e.g. “the PE1”, or 
it is missing.

Detailed Comments


1. Introduction
[…]
BB-EVPN maintains the C-MAC learning in data plane
MB> Please expand ‘C-MAC’ on first use
[…]

This draft defines 4 new Sub-TLVs
MB> s/draft/document

[…]
2. Proposed Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs

   This document introduces four new Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs that are
   included in the LSP-Ping Echo Request packet sent for detecting faults in 
data-plane connectivity in EVPN and PBB-EVPN networks.
   These Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs are described next.

MB> Maybe keep the purpose in line with RFC4385, which says the echo request is 
used to provide a connectivity check, rather than only saying we are detecting 
faults. Strictly speaking, we are detecting both a fault and the absence of a 
fault.

MB> Also, I suggest adding a sentence to clarify that what the target FEC stack 
TLVs are used for in the context of EVPN. Since we only introduce EVPN unicast 
FECs in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk, maybe you can say something like 
“These MAY be used to validate that an identifier for a given EVPN is 
programmed at the target node.”

[…]

Throughout:
s/GAL label/GAL

The ‘L’ in the abbreviation means ‘Label’ so you don’t need to say it twice.

[…]


5.  Encapsulation of OAM Ping Packets

   The LSP Ping Echo request IPv4/UDP packets are encapsulated with the
   Transport and EVPN Label(s) followed by the Generic Associated
   Channel Label (GAL) [RFC6426] which is the bottom most label.  The
   GAL label is followed by IPv4(0x0021) or IPv6(0x0057) Associated
   Channel Header (ACH) [RFC4385].

MB> I think the references are incorrect. GAL is defined in RFC 5586, not 
RFC6426. RFC4385 is the reference for the PW ACH, not the G-ACH. RFC5586 gives 
you the format of the G-ACH that you use following the GAL. The code points for 
IPv4 and IPv6 channels are in Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters 
(iana.org)
So you should probably change the second reference to [RFC5586] and then the 
IANA registry.
[…]

6.2.2.  Using P2MP P-tree
[…]
When using Aggregate Inclusive P-tree, a PE announces an upstream
   assigned MPLS label along with the P-tree ID, in that case both the
   p2mp p-tree MPLS transport label and the upstream MPLS label can be
   used to identify the L2 service.

MB> this does not parse well. I suggest rephrasing to:
“When using Aggregate Inclusive P-tree, a PE announces an upstream
   assigned MPLS label along with the P-tree ID, so both the
   p2mp p-tree MPLS transport label and the upstream MPLS label can be
   used to identify the L2 service.”

[…]
The Leaf PE(s) of the p2mp tree will process the packet and perform
   checks for the EVPN Inclusive Multicast sub-TLV present in the Target
   FEC Stack TLV as described in Section 4.4 in [RFC8029] and respond
   according to [RFC8029] processing rules.  A PE that is not the DF for
   the EVI on the ESI in the Inclusive Multicast sub-TLV, will reply
   with a special code indicating that FEC exists on the router and the
   behavior is to drop the

[bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-02  [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC.

This poll runs until the 15th June 2021.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.
There are currently no IPR disclosures.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1] draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-02 - PBB-EVPN ISID-based 
CMAC-Flush
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw



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

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This poll for adoption is now concluded and there is clear consensus to adopt 
this draft as a BESS working group document.

Please upload the next version of the draft as 
draft-ietf-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-00.

Regards

Matthew


From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Tuesday, 13 April 2021 at 10:36
To: "draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 

Subject: WG Adoption and IPR Poll for 
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on April 27th 2021.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh/


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

Re: [bess] [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-04.txt

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors

Please can you make sure you have all responded to the IPR poll on the BESS 
list for this draft? I think I am still missing responses from a couple of you.

Thanks

Matthew

From: Gyan Mishra 
Date: Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 07:23
To: BESS , 
"draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org" 
, Mankamana Misra 
, Jeff Tantsura , Lili Wang 
, Chenshuanglong , "Simpson, Adam 
1. (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" , Qing Yang 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" , "Bocci, 
Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , Stephane Litkowski 

Subject: Fwd: [E] New Version Notification for 
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-04.txt


Dear BESS,

I have updated the draft in revision 4 from comments during the WG Adoption 
poll.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh/04/

Please review.

Thank  you

Gyan
-- Forwarded message -
From: Mishra, Gyan S 
mailto:gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>>
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:16 AM
Subject: Fwd: [E] New Version Notification for 
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-04.txt
To: Hayabusanew mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>>



-- Forwarded message -
From: mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>>
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:16 AM
Subject: [E] New Version Notification for 
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-04.txt
To: Adam Simpson mailto:adam.1.simp...@nokia.com>>, 
Gyan Mishra mailto:gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>>, Jeff 
Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>, Lili Wang 
mailto:li...@juniper.net>>, Mankamana Mishra 
mailto:manka...@cisco.com>>, Qing Yang 
mailto:qy...@arista.com>>, Shuanglong Chen 
mailto:chenshuangl...@huawei.com>>



A new version of I-D, draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-04.txt
has been successfully submitted by Gyan Mishra and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:   draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh
Revision:   04
Title:  Deployment Guidelines for Edge Peering IPv4-NLRI with IPv6-NH
Document date:  2021-04-26
Group:  Individual Submission
Pages:  21
URL:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_archive_id_draft-2Dmishra-2Dbess-2Ddeployment-2Dguide-2Dipv4nlri-2Dipv6nh-2D04.txt&d=DwICaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-RfNVLML28ZU&m=bGS9O5KFA11j2hd9og9I-N5eBH-Xsiq62Ubp3ky1Kak&s=GplhN6pbPFCDnWAFF0tqeVZjBX1nnF-nL6H8tLNAnsM&e=
Status: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dmishra-2Dbess-2Ddeployment-2Dguide-2Dipv4nlri-2Dipv6nh_&d=DwICaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-RfNVLML28ZU&m=bGS9O5KFA11j2hd9og9I-N5eBH-Xsiq62Ubp3ky1Kak&s=D9OyhTMLCDz9ZQc1mYku6nCUBg3VEiBBB_vSdfKR3Iw&e=
Htmlized:   
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_html_draft-2Dmishra-2Dbess-2Ddeployment-2Dguide-2Dipv4nlri-2Dipv6nh&d=DwICaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-RfNVLML28ZU&m=bGS9O5KFA11j2hd9og9I-N5eBH-Xsiq62Ubp3ky1Kak&s=FKPcDJ5syMhYkZ55Xrx3JbK7hHhzHGzEtOTNimEwwRk&e=
Htmlized:   
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dmishra-2Dbess-2Ddeployment-2Dguide-2Dipv4nlri-2Dipv6nh-2D04&d=DwICaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-RfNVLML28ZU&m=bGS9O5KFA11j2hd9og9I-N5eBH-Xsiq62Ubp3ky1Kak&s=HfbldNQkr40Wa4XsQ_E9e4HD0mLu7Sidk35DT6yG5fM&e=
Diff:   
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dmishra-2Dbess-2Ddeployment-2Dguide-2Dipv4nlri-2Dipv6nh-2D04&d=DwICaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-RfNVLML28ZU&m=bGS9O5KFA11j2hd9og9I-N5eBH-Xsiq62Ubp3ky1Kak&s=Cho5i64yzsLbzTY75c5YIA7OGt1Vo03FteXhvw1XLJA&e=

Abstract:
   As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or
   green field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-
   BGP)now plays an important role in the transition of their Provider
   (P) core network as well as Provider Edge (PE) Edge network from IPv4
   to IPv6.  Operators must be able to continue to support IPv4
   customers when both the Core and Edge networks are IPv6-Only.

   This document details an important External BGP (eBGP) PE-CE Edge
   IPv6-Only peering design that leverages the MP-BGP capability
   exchange by using IPv6 peering as pure transport, allowing both IPv4
   Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) and IPv6 Network Layer
   Reachability Information (NLRI)to be carried over the same (Border
   Gateway Protocol) BGP TCP session.  The design change provides the
   same Dual Stacking functionality that exist

Re: [bess] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Thanks Ketan

This looks fine to me. Please watch out for the shepherd’s write up and 
publication request in the next few days.

Matthew

From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" 
Date: Monday, 12 April 2021 at 05:26
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 

Cc: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: RE: Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for your review and your comments/feedback. We’ve just posted an update 
to the draft to address your comments.


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07

We’ve also adding clarification text related to the transposition scheme in 
this version in response to the discussion on the list : 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/PgmzeCB7APmfv8sizbGDs6ZqcrY/

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Sent: 01 April 2021 16:15
To: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06

Authors,

I am the document shepherd for this draft. As is customary, I have reviewed the 
document and have some comments below.

Please treat these as you would any other working group last call comments.

In general, the draft is clear and well written – thank you.

I have a few minor comments as follows.


  *   Terminology. The document is missing a terminology section. The 
introduction does define some terms e.g. SRv6 based BGP services, SRv6 SID, 
SRv6 Service SID, etc, and I think it would make sense to split these out into 
a terminology section.
  *   There are numerous cases where the definite article (‘a’, ‘the’ etc) is 
missing. Please go through the document carefully and insert as needed.
  *   Introduction: “SRv6 Service SID refers to an SRv6 SID associated with one 
of the service specific behaviors…” I think you mean ‘endpoint behaviors’ per 
RFC8986.
  *   Please expand all acronyms on first use, particularly ones specififc to 
SRv6 e.g. ‘SRH’.

If you can fix these, then I will proceed with the publication process.

Thanks

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

[bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on April 27th 2021.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh/


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

[bess] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors,

I am the document shepherd for this draft. As is customary, I have reviewed the 
document and have some comments below.

Please treat these as you would any other working group last call comments.

In general, the draft is clear and well written – thank you.

I have a few minor comments as follows.


  *   Terminology. The document is missing a terminology section. The 
introduction does define some terms e.g. SRv6 based BGP services, SRv6 SID, 
SRv6 Service SID, etc, and I think it would make sense to split these out into 
a terminology section.
  *   There are numerous cases where the definite article (‘a’, ‘the’ etc) is 
missing. Please go through the document carefully and insert as needed.
  *   Introduction: “SRv6 Service SID refers to an SRv6 SID associated with one 
of the service specific behaviors…” I think you mean ‘endpoint behaviors’ per 
RFC8986.
  *   Please expand all acronyms on first use, particularly ones specififc to 
SRv6 e.g. ‘SRH’.

If you can fix these, then I will proceed with the publication process.

Thanks

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

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw-01

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi WG

I now have sufficient responses, incl. IPR responses, to close this poll for 
adoption.

There is consensus to adopt the draft as a BESS WG document.

Authors: Please can you resubmit the document as 
draft-ietf-bess-weighted-hrw-00.

Thanks

Matthew

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Date: Wednesday, 9 December 2020 at 09:22
To: bess@ietf.org 
Cc: draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-...@ietf.org 

Subject: WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw-01
Hello,

This email begins a two-week WG adoption poll for 
draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw-01 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on 23rd December 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1]  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw/



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

[bess] REMINDER: WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw-01

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi WG

Thanks to those who have already read and commented on the draft.

I would like to see a few more responses before moving this forward, so I will 
extend the WG adoption poll for another two weeks to close on Tuesday 19th Jan.

Also, I am missing IPR responses from some of the authors. Please can you 
respond to the IPR question if you have not already done so.

Hanks

Matthew

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Date: Wednesday, 9 December 2020 at 09:22
To: bess@ietf.org 
Cc: draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-...@ietf.org 

Subject: WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw-01
Hello,

This email begins a two-week WG adoption poll for 
draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw-01 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on 23rd December 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1]  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw/



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

[bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-02 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC.

This poll runs until the 18th January 2021

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.
There are currently two IPR disclosures.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1]  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

I believe there is consensus to publish this draft as a Standards Track RFC.

There have been a number of statements expressing knowledge of implementations, 
in accordance with our implementation policy.

There was one comment on the specification of the size of the label field, but 
this comment was addressed in the subsequent discussion.

Please look out for my shepherd’s review.

Best regards,

Matthew

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Date: Monday, 30 November 2020 at 17:15
To: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org 
, bess@ietf.org 
Subject: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05
This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 14th December 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.
There is currently one IPR disclosure.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

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

[bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw-01

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hello,

This email begins a two-week WG adoption poll for 
draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw-01 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on 23rd December 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1]  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw/



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

[bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 14th December 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.
There is currently one IPR disclosure.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

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

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR all for draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This poll has now concluded.

I believe there is consensus to adopt the draft as a BESS WG draft.

Authors: Please upload a new version with the name 
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-00

Regards

Matthew

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Date: Monday, 2 November 2020 at 12:42
To: bess@ietf.org , draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p...@ietf.org 

Subject: WG Adoption and IPR all for draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-02
Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Monday 16th November 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1]  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp/




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

[bess] WG Adoption and IPR all for draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Monday 16th November 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1]  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp/




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

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG,

This email closes the poll for adoption. I think there is consensus to adopt 
the draft.

Authors: Please upload a new version as a BESS WG draft.

Best regards

Matthew



From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Wednesday, 9 September 2020 at 11:39
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-03
Resent from: 
Resent to: , , Stephane Litkowski 

Resent date: Wednesday, 9 September 2020 at 11:38

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-03 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on 23rd September 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon/



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

[bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-03 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on 23rd September 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon/



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

Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04.txt

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors

Thanks for the quick turn-around.

This email closes the WG last call. There is consensus to publish the draft.

I have uploaded a shepherd write-up to the datatracker and will request 
publication.

Regards

Mattehw


On 09/07/2020, 01:54, "BESS on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" 
 wrote:


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.

Title   : EVPN Operations, Administration and Maintenance 
Requirements and Framework
Authors : Samer Salam
  Ali Sajassi
  Sam Aldrin
  John E. Drake
  Donald E. Eastlake
Filename: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04.txt
Pages   : 19
Date: 2020-07-08

Abstract:
   This document specifies the requirements and reference framework for
   Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM).
   The requirements cover the OAM aspects of EVPN and PBB-EVPN.  The
   framework defines the layered OAM model encompassing the EVPN service
   layer, network layer and underlying Packet Switched Network (PSN)
   transport layer.



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


___
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

Re: [bess] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi Donald

Thank you. These changes look good to me.

Best regards,

Matthew

On 07/07/2020, 19:11, "Donald Eastlake"  wrote:

Hi Matthew,

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:52 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
 wrote:

> Authors
>
> I am the document shepherd for this draft. I have reviewed the draft
> and have the following comments. In general, the draft is clear and
> well written – thank you!. Please treat these comments as you would
> any other working group last call comment.
>
> Best regards
> Matthew
>
>
> Section 2.3 EVPN Network OAM
>
> […]
>
>  - the MP2P tunnels used for the transport of unicast traffic between
>PEs. EVPN allows for three different models of unicast label
>assignment: label per EVI, label per  and label
>per MAC address. In all three models, the label is bound to an EVPN
>Unicast FEC.
>
>  EVPN Network OAM MUST provide mechanisms to check the operation of
>  the data plane and verify that operation against the control plane
>  view.
>
> MB> The formatting here breaks the list up and makes it a bit hard
> to parse. Maybe you intend this paragraph to be attached to the list
> bullet above? If so then it would be clearer to merge the paragraphs
> or indent it to be aligned with the list bullet text.

I believe that paragraph should be attached to the list bullet above by
appending it to the bullet paragraph. (See, for example, the end of
the immediately following bullet paragraph.)

>
>
> EVPN network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band management
>capabilities. As such, OAM messages MUST be encoded so that they
>exhibit identical entropy characteristics to data traffic.
>
> MB> I think it would be clearer to refer to in-band monitoring
> rather than management to prevent confusion with the DCN of
> RFC5718. It is the monitoring that is in-band. I would also suggest
> adding a clarification with the second sentence in this paragraph
> along the lines of “… in order that they share the same fate.”

OK. That would change this paragraph to read

   EVPN network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band monitoring
   capabilities. As such, OAM messages MUST be encoded so that they
   exhibit identical entropy characteristics to data traffic in order
   that they share the same fate.

One additional change: In line with the first change above, I believe
that the following paragraph should be merged with the preceding
bullet item:

   EVPN Network OAM MUST provide mechanisms to check the operation of
   the data plane and verify that operation against the control plane
   view for the DF filtering function.

Thanks,
Donald
=
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 33896 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com

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

[bess] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors

I am the document shepherd for this draft. I have reviewed the draft and have 
the following comments. In general, the draft is clear and well written – thank 
you!. Please treat these comments as you would any other working group last 
call comment.

Best regards

Matthew

Section 2.3 EVPN Network OAM

[…]
  - the MP2P tunnels used for the transport of unicast traffic between
 PEs. EVPN allows for three different models of unicast label
 assignment: label per EVI, label per  and label
 per MAC address. In all three models, the label is bound to an EVPN
 Unicast FEC.

   EVPN Network OAM MUST provide mechanisms to check the operation of
   the data plane and verify that operation against the control plane
   view.

MB> The formatting here breaks the list up and makes it a bit hard to parse. 
Maybe you intend this paragraph to be attached to the list bullet above? If so 
then it would be clearer to merge the paragraphs or indent it to be aligned 
with the list bullet text.



EVPN network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band management

   capabilities. As such, OAM messages MUST be encoded so that they

   exhibit identical entropy characteristics to data traffic.

MB> I think it would be clearer to refer to in-band monitoring rather than 
management to prevent confusion with the DCN of RFC5718. It is the monitoring 
that is in-band. I would also suggest adding a clarification with the second 
sentence in this paragraph along the lines of “… in order that they share the 
same fate.”

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

Re: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Jorge

Yes, you are correct.

The WG Last Call should have read “informational document”.

Matthew

From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Wednesday, 1 July 2020 at 17:59
To: "Parag Jain (paragj)" , "Bocci, Matthew 
(Nokia - GB)" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-fr...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02

Matthew, Stephane,

I assume you meant:

“Also, please indicate if you support publishing the draft as an Informational 
RFC.”

If so, I support it for publication as Informational RFC.
Thanks.
Jorge


From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 at 3:55 AM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-fr...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: , Cisco Employee , 
, , 
Resent-Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 at 3:55 AM

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 29th June 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.
There is currently no IPR disclosed.
Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane

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

Re: [bess] Request BESS WG adoption for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Correcting Stephane’s email address.

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Friday, 19 June 2020 at 10:00
To: Linda Dunbar , "bess@ietf.org" , 
"stephane.litkow...@orange.com" , "Mankamana 
Mishra (mankamis)" 
Subject: Re: Request BESS WG adoption for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07

Hi Linda

This is in our queue (see the WG Wiki at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/bess/wiki).

Expect a poll for adoption shortly.

Matthew

From: Linda Dunbar 
Date: Thursday, 18 June 2020 at 18:09
To: "bess@ietf.org" , "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 
, "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" 

Subject: RE: Request BESS WG adoption for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07

Matthew and Stephane
It has been almost 2 months since our presentation at the IETF107 virtual 
meeting and our request for WG adoption.
Can you let us know what else we need to do to move forward to the WG Adoption 
call?

Thank you very much.

Linda

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:34 AM
To: bess@ietf.org; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) ; 
stephane.litkow...@orange.com; Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) 

Subject: Request BESS WG adoption for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07

Matthew and Stephane

Thank you for the opportunity for us to present the draft at April 28 Interim 
meeting.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/?include_text=1

We understand that the draft has been on the 
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/bess/wik as Candidates for WG Adoption.

We are asking BESS WG Chairs to start the WG Adoption call for the draft.

This draft demonstrates how & why  BGP-based control plane can be effectively 
used for large scale SDWAN overlay networks, which is very beneficial to the 
industry and to other SDOs that have on-going SDWAN projects, such as MEF, BBF, 
ONUG etc. So that they don’t have to re-invent the wheel.

Thank you very much.
Linda Dunbar

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

Re: [bess] Request BESS WG adoption for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi Linda

This is in our queue (see the WG Wiki at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/bess/wiki).

Expect a poll for adoption shortly.

Matthew

From: Linda Dunbar 
Date: Thursday, 18 June 2020 at 18:09
To: "bess@ietf.org" , "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 
, "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" 

Subject: RE: Request BESS WG adoption for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07

Matthew and Stephane
It has been almost 2 months since our presentation at the IETF107 virtual 
meeting and our request for WG adoption.
Can you let us know what else we need to do to move forward to the WG Adoption 
call?

Thank you very much.

Linda

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:34 AM
To: bess@ietf.org; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) ; 
stephane.litkow...@orange.com; Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) 

Subject: Request BESS WG adoption for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07

Matthew and Stephane

Thank you for the opportunity for us to present the draft at April 28 Interim 
meeting.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/?include_text=1

We understand that the draft has been on the 
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/bess/wik as Candidates for WG Adoption.

We are asking BESS WG Chairs to start the WG Adoption call for the draft.

This draft demonstrates how & why  BGP-based control plane can be effectively 
used for large scale SDWAN overlay networks, which is very beneficial to the 
industry and to other SDOs that have on-going SDWAN projects, such as MEF, BBF, 
ONUG etc. So that they don’t have to re-invent the wheel.

Thank you very much.
Linda Dunbar

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

[bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 29th June 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.
There is currently no IPR disclosed.
Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane

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

[bess] FW: Nomcom 2020-2021 Second Call For Volunteers

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Folks

Two of our Routing Area ADs are up for selection. Please consider volunteering 
for the NomCom.

Regards

Matthew


From: WGChairs  on behalf of "STARK, BARBARA H" 

Date: Wednesday, 10 June 2020 at 22:51
To: "wgcha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: Fwd: Nomcom 2020-2021 Second Call For Volunteers

Hi fellow chairs,
Would you mind sending this announcement on to your WGs and impress on them how 
important it is? Especially if the WG’s AD is up for selection.
Thx,
Barbara


Begin forwarded message:
From: NomCom Chair 2020 
Date: June 10, 2020 at 1:55:21 PM CDT
To: IETF Announcement List 
Cc: "i...@ietf.org" 
Subject: Nomcom 2020-2021 Second Call For Volunteers
This is the second sending of the call for volunteers for the 2020-2021 NomCom.

I wanted to mention a few updates from the previous email (sent 2 weeks ago):
- I've fixed the URL at the bottom of the email to point to 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_nomcom_2020_&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=ZsNIRqCxjDeOYYDNalOSHcuwQG23wBJtxzmEnsbPBtI&s=NgIu-7Ij0nEdsFcbJOLcl2M56RxyREhLAtcaHLatD34&e=
  instead of /2019/. This was a test to see if anyone was paying attention. 
Apparently, some people were. ;)
- The IETF 108 registration form includes a checkbox that will let you 
volunteer. You can use this instead of emailing me, when you register for IETF 
108.
- I currently have 39 volunteers. Last year had 149. I need more volunteers!
-
The IETF NomCom appoints people to fill the open slots on the LLC, IETF Trust, 
the IAB, and the IESG.

Ten voting members for the NomCom are selected in a verifiably random way from 
a pool of volunteers. The more volunteers, the better chance we have of 
choosing a random yet representative cross section of the IETF population.

The details of the operation of the NomCom can be found in BCP 10 (RFC 8713). 
RFC 3797 details the selection algorithm.

Special for this year (and only this year), we also have RFC 8788 (one-off 
update to RFC 8713 / BCP 10) to tell us who is eligible to volunteer:

 Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
 the last five in-person IETF meetings in order to volunteer.

 The five meetings are the five most recent in-person meetings that
 ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom
 volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.
 Because no IETF 107 in-person meeting was held, for the 2020-2021
 Nominating Committee those five meetings are IETFs
   102 [Montreal, Canada; July 2018],
   103 [Bangkok, Thailand; November 2018],
   104 [Prague, Czech Republic; March 2019],
   105 [Montreal, Canada; July 2019], and
   106 [Singapore; November 2019].

Keep in mind that eligibility is based on in-person attendance at the five 
listed meetings. You can check your eligibility at: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_registration_nomcom.py&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=ZsNIRqCxjDeOYYDNalOSHcuwQG23wBJtxzmEnsbPBtI&s=7_9x9PPoUIajJs2AnUFYg0KnEg8gkD3Jnwf1v079EQo&e=
 .

If you qualify, please volunteer. Before you decide to volunteer, please 
remember that anyone appointed to this NomCom will not be considered as a 
candidate for any of the positions that the 2020 - 2021 NomCom is responsible 
for filling.

People commonly volunteer by ticking the box on IETF registration forms. The 
IETF 106 form did not ask whether people were willing to volunteer. IETF 107 
did ask, but all those registrations were canceled. I have asked the 
Secretariat if it is possible to get the list if volunteers from canceled IETF 
107 registrations. If that list is available, I will contact all who are 
verified as eligible. But given the uncertainty of this process, I would 
encourage people to volunteer directly (see the bottom of this email for 
instructions). Thank you for volunteering!

The list of people and posts whose terms end with the March 2021 IETF meeting, 
and thus the positions for which this NomCom is responsible, are

IETF Trust:
   Joel Halpern

LLC:
   Maja Andjelkovic

IAB:
   Jari Arkko
   Jeff Tantsura
   Mark Nottingham
   Stephen Farrell
   Wes Hardaker
   Zhenbin Li

IESG:
   Alissa Cooper, IETF Chair/GEN AD
   Alvaro Retana, RTG AD
   Barry Leiba, ART AD
   Deborah Brungard, RTG AD
   Éric Vyncke, INT AD
   Magnus Westerlund, TSV AD
   Roman Danyliw, SEC AD
   Warren Kumari, OPS AD

All appointments are for 2 years. The Routing area has 3 ADs and the General 
area has 1; all other areas have 2 ADs. Thus, all areas (that have more than 
one AD) have at least one continuing AD.

The primary activity for this NomCom will begin in July 2020 and should be 
completed in January 2021.  The NomCom will have regularly scheduled conference 
calls to ensure progress. There will be activities to collect requirements f

[bess] Post publication request IPR disclosure against draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Folks



I submitted a request for publication of this draft as a standards track RFC in 
September 2019. At the time, only one IPR disclosure had been made against the 
draft.



Unfortunately a new IPR disclosure ( 3838 ) was filed on 31st October 2019, 
long after the document went through WG last call and after this publication 
request was made. Therefore the WG would not have been aware of it at the time 
of the WG last call.


The IPR disclosures for the draft can be found at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming



Please indicate, by 19th June 2020,  if you have any concerns with proceeding 
with the publication process in the light of this late disclosure.



Thanks



Matthew


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

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Folks

This email closes this adoption call. Apologies for the delay.

I believe there is consensus to adopt it.

Authors: Please submit a new version as WG document.

Best regards

Matthew

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 14:42
To: "draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-...@ietf.org" , 
"bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04
Resent from: 
Resent to: Stephane Litkowski , 
, 
Resent date: Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 14:42

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 
[1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 11th March 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd/



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

[bess] FURTHER REMINDER Re: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Folks

I’m keeping the WG last call running for another two weeks (until 25th March).

Please read the draft and indicate to the list if you have any comments. Even 
if you do not have comments, please indicate if you do or do not support 
publication.

I will also advertise the WG last call to the SPRING list.

Thanks

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 11:28
To: "draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] REMINDER Re: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

WG

I have only seen one IPR responses to this WG last call and no comments. I will 
therefore extend it for another two weeks.

Regards

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Monday, 10 February 2020 at 16:17
To: "draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04
Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 24th February 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

There is currently no IPR disclosed.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [1]. Please indicate 
if you are aware of any implementations of the modified protocol described in 
this draft.

 Thank you,

Matthew

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

Re: [bess] REMINDER Re: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Thanks Eric and Keyur

I will keep this open for another two weeks.

Best regards

Matthew

From: Eric C Rosen 
Date: Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 22:34
To: "adr...@olddog.co.uk" , "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
, "draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: REMINDER Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04


I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this document.
On 3/11/20 5:23 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Matthew, WG,

I just posted -05

That is chiefly a keep-alive refresh, but I also updated the IANA section and 
uses to take account of the FCFS allocation of a code point for the document.

We still have an open discussion on a minor point with Stephane – I propose we 
roll that into the last call.

Wrt IPR

  *   Eric Rosen
We may be able to rouse him from his retirement slumber, but perhaps not.
I have a memory of Eric sending a cover-all email about Auth-48 and IPR, but:
- I may be imagining that
- I certainly can’t find it
  *   Keyur Patel
We will prod him!

Best,
Adrian

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
<mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>
Sent: 10 March 2020 11:35
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>; 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org>;
 bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: REMINDER Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

Hi Adrian

Thanks for the response. Yes, please could you refresh the draft to keep it 
alive.

I’ve only received IPR responses from you, Luay and John. Please could you 
chase your other co-authors to respond as well.

I also didn’t see any other comments on the list. I suggest we put this 
document back in the WG LC queue so we can iron out any final discussion points 
before running another last call. It would probably make sense to inform the 
spring WG as well since this is really about interconnecting SR-enabled domains.

Cheers

Matthew


From: Adrian Farrel <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>
Organisation: Old Dog Consulting
Reply to: "adr...@olddog.co.uk"<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk> 
<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Monday, 9 March 2020 at 13:00
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
<mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>, 
"draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org"<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org>
 
<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org>,
 "bess@ietf.org"<mailto:bess@ietf.org> <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

Hi Matt,
Sorry, did I miss this before?
I am not aware of any IPR that needs to be disclosed and has not already been 
disclosed for this document.

Of course (?) I support progressing this work which I think is a simple 
addition to enable quite a lot of function. I still regret that we used the 
“datacentre-gateway” file name as the document is about SR-enabled domains as 
indicated in the Title and Abstract.

Looking back at my email trail, there was a final point of discussion with 
Stephane that I am not sure was completely resolved: Stephane?

Also, since -04 expired, would you like me to post a keep-alive -05?

Thanks,
Adrian

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
<mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>
Sent: 26 February 2020 11:29
To: 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org>;
 bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: REMINDER Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

WG

I have only seen one IPR responses to this WG last call and no comments. I will 
therefore extend it for another two weeks.

Regards

Matthew

From: BESS <mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of 
"Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
<mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>
Date: Monday, 10 February 2020 at 16:17
To: 
"draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org"<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org>
 
<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org>,
 "bess@ietf.org"<mailto:bess@ietf.org> <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04
Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 24th February 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4

Re: [bess] REMINDER Re: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi Adrian

Thanks for the response. Yes, please could you refresh the draft to keep it 
alive.

I’ve only received IPR responses from you, Luay and John. Please could you 
chase your other co-authors to respond as well.

I also didn’t see any other comments on the list. I suggest we put this 
document back in the WG LC queue so we can iron out any final discussion points 
before running another last call. It would probably make sense to inform the 
spring WG as well since this is really about interconnecting SR-enabled domains.

Cheers

Matthew


From: Adrian Farrel 
Organisation: Old Dog Consulting
Reply to: "adr...@olddog.co.uk" 
Date: Monday, 9 March 2020 at 13:00
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

Hi Matt,
Sorry, did I miss this before?
I am not aware of any IPR that needs to be disclosed and has not already been 
disclosed for this document.

Of course (?) I support progressing this work which I think is a simple 
addition to enable quite a lot of function. I still regret that we used the 
“datacentre-gateway” file name as the document is about SR-enabled domains as 
indicated in the Title and Abstract.

Looking back at my email trail, there was a final point of discussion with 
Stephane that I am not sure was completely resolved: Stephane?

Also, since -04 expired, would you like me to post a keep-alive -05?

Thanks,
Adrian

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
Sent: 26 February 2020 11:29
To: draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: REMINDER Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

WG

I have only seen one IPR responses to this WG last call and no comments. I will 
therefore extend it for another two weeks.

Regards

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Monday, 10 February 2020 at 16:17
To: "draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04
Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 24th February 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

There is currently no IPR disclosed.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [1]. Please indicate 
if you are aware of any implementations of the modified protocol described in 
this draft.

 Thank you,

Matthew

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

[bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 
[1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 11th March 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd/



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

[bess] REMINDER Re: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

I have only seen one IPR responses to this WG last call and no comments. I will 
therefore extend it for another two weeks.

Regards

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Monday, 10 February 2020 at 16:17
To: "draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gate...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04
Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 24th February 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

There is currently no IPR disclosed.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [1]. Please indicate 
if you are aware of any implementations of the modified protocol described in 
this draft.

 Thank you,

Matthew

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

[bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04
Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 24th February 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

There is currently no IPR disclosed.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [1]. Please indicate 
if you are aware of any implementations of the modified protocol described in 
this draft.

 Thank you,

Matthew

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

[bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-01

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors

I have reviewed the draft. It is well written, and I only have a few very minor 
editorial comments.

Please treat these as you would any other WG LC comment.

Pg 5:

“o  Next Hop Address = VPN-IPv6 address of next hop with an 8-octet RD
  is set to zero (potentially followed by the link-local VPN-IPv6
  address of the next hop with an 8-octet RD is set to zero).”

s/is set to zero/set to zero, in both cases.


Pg7:

“This specification does not propose that the Extended Next Hop

   Encoding capability be used with any other combinations of .  In particular, this specification does not

   propose that the Extended Next Hop Encoding capability be used for

   NLRI AFI/SAFIs whose definition already allows use of both IPv4 and

   IPv6 next hops (e.g., AFI/SAFI = <1/132> as defined in 
[RFC4684]).

   Similarly, it does not propose that the Extended Next Hop Encoding

   capability be used for NLRI AFI/SAFIs for which there is already a

   solution for advertising a next hop of a different address family

   (e.g., AFI/SAFI = <2/1>, <2/2>, or <2/4> with IPv4 Next Hop as per

   [RFC4798] and AFI/SAFI = <2/128> with 
IPv4 Next Hop as per

   [RFC4659]).”





I am not sure “propose” is the right word, as this document (when published as 
an RFC) specifies a specific set of procedures. It will not be a proposal. I 
suggest rephrasing the first sentence to:

“The Extended Next Hop Encoding capability MUST NOT be used with any other 
combinations of .”

I also found the second part of the paragraph starting “In particular” to be 
unnecessary given the first sentence. If it is needed, then maybe you could 
rephrase it to read as an example, e.g.:

“For example, the Next Hop Encoding capability specified in this document is 
not intended to be used for...” and “Similarly, it is not intended that the 
Extended Next Hop Encoding capability be used for NLRI AFI/SAFIs for which 
there is already solution...”.



Best regards



Matthew



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

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email closes this poll for adoption.

There is consensus to adopt this draft as a BESS WG document. I have also 
received negative IPR responses from all authors.

Authors: please upload a new revision as draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-00.

Regards

Matthew

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 06:48
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 

Subject: WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa-04
Resent from: 
Resent to: , , Stephane Litkowski 

Resent date: Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 06:48

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa-04 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Tuesday 4th February 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa/





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

[bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa-04 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Tuesday 4th February 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa/





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

Re: [bess] WG Last Call and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-00

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email closes this WG last call. It looks like the authors have already 
addressed the comments from Acee in rev 01. Thanks for the quick turn around.

There is consensus to publish the document and I have seen a couple of 
implementation declarations . I will do my usual shepherd’s review and request 
publication after that.

Best regards

Mattew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Monday, 6 January 2020 at 17:54
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-00

This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-00.

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 20th January 2019.

We have only just completed an IPR poll on the draft prior to adoption in 
December 2019, so I will not run another one now.

There is currently no IPR disclosed.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [1]. Please indicate 
if you are aware of any implementations of the modified protocol described in 
this draft.

 Thank you,

Matthew

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

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

[bess] WG Last Call and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-00

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-00.

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 20th January 2019.

We have only just completed an IPR poll on the draft prior to adoption in 
December 2019, so I will not run another one now.

There is currently no IPR disclosed.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [1]. Please indicate 
if you are aware of any implementations of the modified protocol described in 
this draft.

 Thank you,

Matthew

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

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

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision-00

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

This email closes the poll for adoption. I believe there is consensus to adopt 
this draft.

As noted in the discussion, I will be running an implementation poll as a part 
of the working group last call, as is our practice in BESS. As a reminder, the 
policy is described here:

 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

Authors: please upload a new version of the draft named 
draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-00.

Best regards

Matthew

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Wednesday, 27 November 2019 at 12:36
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision-00

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision-00 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 11th December 2019.

Regards,
Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision/



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

[bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision-00

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision-00 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 11th December 2019.

Regards,
Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision/



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

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

Thanks for the follow up discussion. I think we have consensus to publish this 
draft.

Authors: please can you revise the draft to address the editorial comments from 
Stig (I am not sure we have any other technical comments that require changes 
to the draft). I can then take the next steps.

Regards

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, 27 September 2019 at 11:49
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperat...@ietf.org" 

Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03

Folks

I have only seen a few responses to this WG last call. I am therefore going to 
extend it until Friday 4th October.

If you haven’t done so, please review the draft and post any comments to the 
list and indicate whether or not you support publication as a standards track 
RFC.

Thanks

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Tuesday, 10 September 2019 at 15:26
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperat...@ietf.org" 

Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03


Hello Working Group,



This email starts a two week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03 [1].



This poll runs until 25 September 2019.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).



If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.



There are currently no IPR disclosures against the document.



If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].



Thank you,

Matthew and Stephane


[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This WG adoption poll is now closed.

Authors: please upload a new version of the draft as 
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-00.

Best regards

Matthew


From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, 27 September 2019 at 12:00
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


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

[bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


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

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Folks

I have only seen a few responses to this WG last call. I am therefore going to 
extend it until Friday 4th October.

If you haven’t done so, please review the draft and post any comments to the 
list and indicate whether or not you support publication as a standards track 
RFC.

Thanks

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Tuesday, 10 September 2019 at 15:26
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperat...@ietf.org" 

Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03


Hello Working Group,



This email starts a two week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03 [1].



This poll runs until 25 September 2019.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).



If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.



There are currently no IPR disclosures against the document.



If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].



Thank you,

Matthew and Stephane


[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email closes this working group adoption poll.

Authors: please upload a new version of the draft as 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-00.

Please also be good to address/respond to the comments from Neeraj.

Best regards

Matthew

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Wednesday, 4 September 2019 at 09:36
To: "draft-keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-02
Resent from: 
Resent to: , , 

Resent date: Wednesday, 4 September 2019 at 09:36

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption for 
draft-keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-02

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond to the IPR poll only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been 
disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 18th September 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


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

[bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hello Working Group,



This email starts a two week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03 [1].



This poll runs until 25 September 2019.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).



If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.



There are currently no IPR disclosures against the document.



If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].



Thank you,

Matthew and Stephane


[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


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

[bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption for 
draft-keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-02

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond to the IPR poll only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been 
disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 18th September 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


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

Re: [bess] Documents shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-06

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi Jorge

Its 7342 that's the problem, rather than 7432:

[RFC7342]  Dunbar, L., Kumari, W., and I. Gashinsky, "Practices for
   Scaling ARP and Neighbor Discovery (ND) in Large Data Centers",
   RFC 7342, DOI 10.17487/RFC7342, August 2014, <https://www.rfc-
   editor.org/info/rfc7342>.

Matthew

On 08/07/2019, 17:21, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
 wrote:

Hi Matthew,

Weird, RFC7432 is in fact used multiple times. 
Could it be just that we shouldn't have the space between "RFC" and "7432"? 

Old:

[RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
   Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet
   VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015,
   <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

New:

[RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
   Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet
   VPN", RFC7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015,
   <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.


Let us know if you want us to republish with just that change.
    
    Thanks.
Jorge

-Original Message-
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Monday, July 8, 2019 at 6:05 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp...@ietf.org" 

Cc: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: Documents shepherd's review of 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-06

Hi Jorge

Thanks. Please can you double-check the reference to RFC 7342? It 
appears in your list of normative references, but does not seem to be used in 
the text.

Regards

Matthew

On 08/07/2019, 09:50, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
 wrote:

Hi Matthew,

We submitted version 07, which addresses your comments.
    Thank you very much for reviewing.

Jorge

-Original Message-
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:20 PM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp...@ietf.org" 

Cc: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Documents shepherd's review of 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-06
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: , 
, , 
, , , 
, 
Resent-Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:20 PM

Authors

I am the document shepherd for this draft. Please see below for 
my comments. Please treat these as you would any other WG last call comments.

Please address these before I submit the document to the IESG 
for publication.

Best regards

Matthew

General:
The draft is well written and generally good to go. I have just 
a few minor comments.

Number of Co-Authors: There are 8 co-authors listed in the 
document header. Generally, the RFC editor expects this to be limited to 5. 
Please can you reduce the number, e.g. by moving the less active authors to a 
major contributors section in the draft.

RFC2119 language: There are a couple of cases where you may 
have intended to capitalise certain keywords. For example, in section 4.4 you 
write 'recommended' when perhaps 'RECOMMENDED' was intended, and 'not 
recommended' where 'NOT RECOMMENDED' might be more appropriate. Please go 
thorough and double-check.

Thanks

Matthew









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

Re: [bess] Documents shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-06

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi Jorge

Thanks. Please can you double-check the reference to RFC 7342? It appears in 
your list of normative references, but does not seem to be used in the text.

Regards

Matthew

On 08/07/2019, 09:50, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
 wrote:

Hi Matthew,

We submitted version 07, which addresses your comments.
Thank you very much for reviewing.

Jorge

-Original Message-
    From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:20 PM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp...@ietf.org" 

Cc: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Documents shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-06
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: , , 
, , 
, , , 

Resent-Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:20 PM

Authors

I am the document shepherd for this draft. Please see below for my 
comments. Please treat these as you would any other WG last call comments.

Please address these before I submit the document to the IESG for 
publication.

Best regards

Matthew

General:
The draft is well written and generally good to go. I have just a few 
minor comments.

Number of Co-Authors: There are 8 co-authors listed in the document 
header. Generally, the RFC editor expects this to be limited to 5. Please can 
you reduce the number, e.g. by moving the less active authors to a major 
contributors section in the draft.

RFC2119 language: There are a couple of cases where you may have 
intended to capitalise certain keywords. For example, in section 4.4 you write 
'recommended' when perhaps 'RECOMMENDED' was intended, and 'not recommended' 
where 'NOT RECOMMENDED' might be more appropriate. Please go thorough and 
double-check.

Thanks

Matthew





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

Re: [bess] Document shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors, WG,

One further comment on this draft.

In the IANA considerations section you request the creation of a new registry 
for the "ARP/ND Extended Community Flags octet". The registry has a number of 
unassigned Flags. However, the draft does not specify a registration policy for 
this registry.

Please can you propose a suitable registration policy. See section 4 of RFC 
8126 for information on the different policies. 

Thanks

Matthew



On 26/06/2019, 17:46, "BESS on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
 wrote:

Authors

I am the document shepherd for this draft. Please see below for my 
comments. Please treat these as you would any other WG last call comments.

Best regards

Matthew

General:
Why do you say the EVPN ARP/ND Extended Community is optional? Don’t you 
always use it if you comply to the procedures in the draft? Also, I am not 
clear why in section 3 you say the PE will follow the procedures (which I 
interpret as a MUST), but there are no MUSTs in e.g. 3a.

Please clarify in the draft.

Please also check the capitalization of RFC2119 keywords throughout. For 
example, there are a few instances where a 'may' should be a 'MAY'

Abstract and 1. Introduction
This document proposes an OPTIONAL extended community that is
   advertised ...

Change to 'this document defines an extended community..."


Section 1.1 Terminology and Conventions:
"Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Requests or Neighbor Discovery (ND) - or 
Neighbor Solicitation (NS) - messages are replied locally by the PE,"
This text seems to mix up Neighbor Discovery (the process) with Neighbor 
Solicitation (the message). I would suggest deleting Neighbor Discovery from 
this sentence.

1. Use of the EVPN ARP/ND Extended Community

A PE may learn the IPv6->MAC pair and its associated ND Flags in the 
management plane or snooping Neighbor Advertisement messages coming from the CE.

s/management plane or snooping Neighbor/management plane or by snooping 
Neighbor

___
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

[bess] Documents shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-06

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors

I am the document shepherd for this draft. Please see below for my comments. 
Please treat these as you would any other WG last call comments.

Please address these before I submit the document to the IESG for publication.

Best regards

Matthew

General:
The draft is well written and generally good to go. I have just a few minor 
comments.

Number of Co-Authors: There are 8 co-authors listed in the document header. 
Generally, the RFC editor expects this to be limited to 5. Please can you 
reduce the number, e.g. by moving the less active authors to a major 
contributors section in the draft.

RFC2119 language: There are a couple of cases where you may have intended to 
capitalise certain keywords. For example, in section 4.4 you write 
'recommended' when perhaps 'RECOMMENDED' was intended, and 'not recommended' 
where 'NOT RECOMMENDED' might be more appropriate. Please go thorough and 
double-check.

Thanks

Matthew

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

[bess] Document shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors

I am the document shepherd for this draft. Please see below for my comments. 
Please treat these as you would any other WG last call comments.

Best regards

Matthew

General:
Why do you say the EVPN ARP/ND Extended Community is optional? Don’t you always 
use it if you comply to the procedures in the draft? Also, I am not clear why 
in section 3 you say the PE will follow the procedures (which I interpret as a 
MUST), but there are no MUSTs in e.g. 3a.

Please clarify in the draft.

Please also check the capitalization of RFC2119 keywords throughout. For 
example, there are a few instances where a 'may' should be a 'MAY'

Abstract and 1. Introduction
This document proposes an OPTIONAL extended community that is
   advertised ...

Change to 'this document defines an extended community..."


Section 1.1 Terminology and Conventions:
"Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Requests or Neighbor Discovery (ND) - or 
Neighbor Solicitation (NS) - messages are replied locally by the PE,"
This text seems to mix up Neighbor Discovery (the process) with Neighbor 
Solicitation (the message). I would suggest deleting Neighbor Discovery from 
this sentence.

1. Use of the EVPN ARP/ND Extended Community

A PE may learn the IPv6->MAC pair and its associated ND Flags in the management 
plane or snooping Neighbor Advertisement messages coming from the CE.

s/management plane or snooping Neighbor/management plane or by snooping Neighbor

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

[bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email begins a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-03.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list. 
Please also indicate if you support or do not support publishing the draft as 
an RFC.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

We are also polling for any existing implementations.

The working group last call closes on Friday 21st June 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane



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

[bess] Second WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-06

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

We ran a working group last call on this draft in August 2018. Although we had 
an Ops Area review, we did not get a lot of responses from participants who 
were not already authors of the draft. We are therefore running another working 
group last call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-06.

Please indicate to the list if you have read the draft and support its 
publication as an RFC. Please also indicate to the list if you have read the 
draft and do not support its publication.

Please also send any other last call comments to the BESS list.

This last call ends on Friday 21st June 2019.

Regards

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

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-01

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email closes this WG adoption poll. There is consensus to adopt this draft 
as a BESS working group draft.

Authors: please upload a new version with the name 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-00.

Regards

Matthew and Stephane

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Wednesday, 6 February 2019 at 10:23
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-fr...@ietf.org" 

Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-01

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of 
draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-01.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 20th February 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

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

[bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-01

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of 
draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-01.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 20th February 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

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

Re: [bess] REMINDER: Wg Adoption and IPR poll for draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-07

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

This draft directly addresses a working group milestone for an MVPN YANG model, 
has been developed over a significant period of time and I have not seen any 
objection to adoption.

I am therefore closing this poll for adoption with the conclusion that there is 
consensus to adopt this draft as a working group document.

Authors: please upload a new revision of the draft changing only the name of 
the draft to draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-yang-00.

Regards

Matthew


From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Wednesday, 19 December 2018 at 05:48
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-liu-bess-mvpn-y...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] REMINDER: Wg Adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-07

Folks

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 do so and indicate 
to the list if you support adoption.

This poll will now close on Monday 7th January 2019.

Season’s greetings.

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Monday, 3 December 2018 at 14:52
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-liu-bess-mvpn-y...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] Wg Adoption and IPR poll for draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-07

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of 
draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-07.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Monday 17th December 2018.

Regards,
Matthew


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

[bess] REMINDER: Wg Adoption and IPR poll for draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-07

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Folks

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 do so and indicate 
to the list if you support adoption.

This poll will now close on Monday 7th January 2019.

Season’s greetings.

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Monday, 3 December 2018 at 14:52
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-liu-bess-mvpn-y...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] Wg Adoption and IPR poll for draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-07

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of 
draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-07.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Monday 17th December 2018.

Regards,
Matthew


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

[bess] Wg Adoption and IPR poll for draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-07

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of 
draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-07.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Monday 17th December 2018.

Regards,
Matthew


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

[bess] Document shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-02.txt

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors and WG

I am the document shepherd for draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-02.txt. I have 
reviewed the document and I believe it is ready to progress, subject to fixing 
the following comments. Please treat these as you would WG last call comments.


  *   The text is missing ‘a’, ‘the’, etc, in many places. This can make it 
hard to parse. Please can you review the text and correct these throughout.
  *   Section 2.1, Scenarios. It would be clearer to add references from the 
text to the figures.
  *   Section 2.1 “BGP VPLS NLRI”. Please add a figure number to the title of 
the figure.
  *   Section 5.1, Paragraph 2: s/a limited set of MAC addresses is beyond/ a 
limited set of MAC addresses are beyond
  *   Section 8: IANA considerations. Please update the wording in this section 
to reflect that the document has passed WG last call. It currently reads as if 
the document may request IANA actions in the future.
  *   Section 9: s/The authos/the authors

Thanks,

Matthew


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

[bess] Document shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors and WG

I am the document shepherd for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-04. I have 
reviewed the document and I believe it is ready to progress, subject to fixing 
the following minor comments. Please treat these as you would WG last call 
comments.

I also wanted to draw the WG’s attention to the fact that we did not receive a 
statement during WG last call from Contributor Mudassir Tufail. We intend to 
proceed with publication since he did respond to an earlier IPR poll on the 
draft.


  *   Please expand all acronyms on first use.
  *   The ‘terminology’ and ‘conventions used in this document’ are at the end 
of the document. Please can you move them to the beginning.
  *   Section 2: Solution requirements. I think these are the design 
requirements for the solution proposed in this draft and which it is claimed to 
meet, rather than requirements for some future as yet un-published solution. 
Maybe you can rephrase the first sentence to: “The IR optimization solution 
specified in this document (referred to as optimized-IR hereafter) meets the 
following requirements:”. If there are some from this list that it does not 
meet, then you should call them out.
  *   Section 3: The first paragraph says that you are changing the Inclusive 
Multicast Ethernet Tag routes and attributes. Are you really changing them or 
extending them? If you are changing them then I think this document updates 
RFC7432, otherwise it is probably better to change the wording to ‘extends’.
  *   Section 3: Flags field diagram. ‘reserved’ is usually shortened to ‘rsvd’ 
rather than ‘resved’ in RFCs.
  *   There are a couple of cases where you say ‘the solution proposes’ 
(Section 3 and 4.4). This is no longer a proposal, but rather an accepted 
solution. I suggest you remove the word ‘proposes’ and rephrase those sentences 
accordingly.

Thanks

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

Re: [bess] Second WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Folks

Across the two working group last calls for this draft, I think we have 
consensus to publish it as an RFC.

I will sends a document shepherd’s review shortly.

Best regards

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Monday, 24 September 2018 at 12:04
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] Second WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-02

All

Since we have received a recent IPR declaration on this draft and the first WG 
last call was so long ago, we are running a second last call to reaffirm WG 
consensus to publish the draft as an RFC.

Therefore, this email begins a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-02.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

We are also polling for any existing implementations.

The working group last call closes on Monday 8th Oct 2018.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane



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

[bess] Second WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-02

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

All

Since we have received a recent IPR declaration on this draft and the first WG 
last call was so long ago, we are running a second last call to reaffirm WG 
consensus to publish the draft as an RFC.

Therefore, this email begins a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-02.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

We are also polling for any existing implementations.

The working group last call closes on Monday 8th Oct 2018.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane



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

[bess] New BESS WG Secretary

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Folks,

Please welcome Mankamana Mishra as our new working group secretary.

Best regards,

Matthew and Stephane

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

[bess] WG last call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-04

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email begins a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-04.txt
Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.
We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

We are also polling for any existing implementations.

The working group last call closes on Wednesday 22nd August 2018.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane


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

[bess] Note takers for BESS meeting in Montreal

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

We would really appreciate volunteers to take the minutes for the meeting on 
Friday. Please let me know if you can help with this.

In the longer term, the chairs are also seeking volunteers for the role of 
working group secretary. Please let us know if you are interested. Some 
guidance on the role of WG secretaries can be found in RFC2418 and here:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-secretaries-good-practices-07.txt

Best regards

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

[bess] BESS Montreal Agenda and Slides

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Here is the agenda.

Presenters: please send your slides to me by the end of Wednesday 18th July.

Thanks

Matthew

  BESS Working Group Agenda, IETF102 Montreal
---
9:30-11:30 Friday Morning session I, Viger


1. Working Group Status   Chairs, 15 min
2. draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02 Ali Sajassi, 10 min
3. draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop-01   Ali Sajassi, 10 min
4. draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-03  Greg Mirsky, 10 min
5. draft-jain-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07   Parag Jain, 10 min
6. draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-01Mankamana Misha, 5 
min
7. draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-02 Neeraj Malhotra/Ali 
Sajassi, 10 min
8. draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-02  Neeraj Malhotra/Ali 
Sajassi, 10 min
9. draft-rabadan-sajassi-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-01 Jorge Rabadan, 10 min
10. draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-00  Donald Eastlake, 5 min
11. draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00 Donald Eastlake, 5 min
12. draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-00Ron Bonica, 10 min
13. draft-bonica-6man-vp-dest-opt-00Ron Bonica, 10 min

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

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

I am now closing this WG poll for adoption. There is consensus to adopt this 
draft.

Authors: There was one set of comments from Sasha. Please can you take a look 
at these and address them in the new v00 working group draft.

Regards

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, 1 June 2018 at 13:48
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org" 

Subject: Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03

We’ve only had a couple of responses from people who are not co-authors of the 
draft. It would be good to see some wider interest, so please review the draft 
and indicate to the list if you support adoption or not, especially if you are 
not a co-author. I will extend the poll for adoption for another week, 
accordingly.

Thanks to those who have already commented.

Regards

Matthew and Stephane

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Thursday, 17 May 2018 at 11:24
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org" 

Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Thursday 31st May 2018.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane

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

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

We’ve only had a couple of responses from people who are not co-authors of the 
draft. It would be good to see some wider interest, so please review the draft 
and indicate to the list if you support adoption or not, especially if you are 
not a co-author. I will extend the poll for adoption for another week, 
accordingly.

Thanks to those who have already commented.

Regards

Matthew and Stephane

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Thursday, 17 May 2018 at 11:24
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org" 

Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Thursday 31st May 2018.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane

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

[bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Thursday 31st May 2018.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane

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

Re: [bess] Document shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Hi Ali

Thank you for the quick turnaround. The new version looks good to me.

Regards

Matthew

From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" 
Date: Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 06:21
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-in...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 

Subject: Re: Document shepherd's review of 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-03

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for your comments. I addressed them all (please refer inline for the 
comment resolutions) and I published a new rev04 with these resolutions.

Regards,
Ali

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:53 AM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-in...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 

Subject: Document shepherd's review of 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-03
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: Cisco Employee , , 
, 
Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:53 AM

Authors,

Here are my comments on the draft. In general, the draft is well written and 
good-to-go, but I have a few comments that are mostly aimed at improving the 
readability of the draft.

Please treat these as WG last call comments.

Best regards

Matthew



General Comments:
- Please expand all less-commonly used acronyms on first use.
Done.

- You use a mix of ‘a EVPN’ and ‘an EVPN’. I think it should be ‘an EVPN’ 
throughout, since I presume you intend the reader to say ‘EeeeVPN’.
Done.

Minor comments:
Section 1, 2nd paragraph:
“Section 2 provides the details of the requirements. Section 3 specifies 
procedures for the seamless integration of VPLS and EVPN networks. Section 4 
specifies procedures for the seamless integration of PBB-VPLS and PBB-EVPN 
networks. Section 5 discusses the solution advantages.”
I am not sure we need to be talking about solution advantages in an RFC, unless 
we are directly comparing this solution with some other published solution. I 
suggest changing this to solution attributes.
Done. I got rid of that section and move the text to the introduction section 
and replaced “advantages” with “attributes”.

Section 3:
“All the logic for this seamless integration…” would read better as just “All 
the logic for seamless integration…”
Done.

Section 3.1:
“,per current standard procedures specified in..”
‘current standard’ is redundant once this is published. I suggest changing this 
to just “per the procedures specified in…”
Done.

Section 3.1. Second paragraph. The grammar makes this hard to parse. I suggest 
changing ‘would’ to ‘will’ throughout and rewording the last two sentences as 
follows:

“In other words, when the discovery phase is complete, the EVPN PEs will have 
discovered all the PEs in the VPN instance along with their associated 
capability (EVPN or VPLS-only), whereas the VPLS PEs will have discovered all 
the PEs in the VPN instance as if they were all VPLS-only PEs.”
Done.

Section 3.3: 2nd paragraph:
“The EVPN PEs do not advertise the C-MAC address learned over PW to each other 
because every EVPN PE learns it directly over its associated PW to that VPLS 
PE.”
I think this should be:
“The EVPN PEs do not advertise the C-MAC address learned over the PWs to each 
other because every EVPN PE learns them directly over its associated PW to that 
VPLS PE. “
Done.

Section 3.3: 2nd and 3rd paragraph:
“….but this is the typical behavior of VPLS PEs.”. This would be clearer if it 
was a new sentence e.g.:
“Note that this is behavior typical of VPLS PEs.”
Done.

Section 5: Solution Advantages
As mentioned above, I don’t think we need to push advantages of a stand-alone 
and soon-to-be-standardised solution unless we are directly comparing it with 
something else. I suggest renaming this to ‘Solution Attributes”.
Done. Moved the text of this section into the introduction section.

Section 6: Security consideration.

This section is far too light weight and I am concerned that the security area 
will have concerns. If there are really no additional considerations, then 
perhaps you could be more explicit as to what consideration from VPLS and EVPN 
do apply, and/or provide references.
Done.


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

[bess] Document shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-03

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Authors,

Here are my comments on the draft. In general, the draft is well written and 
good-to-go, but I have a few comments that are mostly aimed at improving the 
readability of the draft.

Please treat these as WG last call comments.

Best regards

Matthew



General Comments:
- Please expand all less-commonly used acronyms on first use.
- You use a mix of ‘a EVPN’ and ‘an EVPN’. I think it should be ‘an EVPN’ 
throughout, since I presume you intend the reader to say ‘EeeeVPN’.

Minor comments:
Section 1, 2nd paragraph:
“Section 2 provides the details of the requirements. Section 3 specifies 
procedures for the seamless integration of VPLS and EVPN networks. Section 4 
specifies procedures for the seamless integration of PBB-VPLS and PBB-EVPN 
networks. Section 5 discusses the solution advantages.”

I am not sure we need to be talking about solution advantages in an RFC, unless 
we are directly comparing this solution with some other published solution. I 
suggest changing this to solution attributes.

Section 3:
“All the logic for this seamless integration…” would read better as just “All 
the logic for seamless integration…”

Section 3.1:
“,per current standard procedures specified in..”
‘current standard’ is redundant once this is published. I suggest changing this 
to just “per the procedures specified in…”

Section 3.1. Second paragraph. The grammar makes this hard to parse. I suggest 
changing ‘would’ to ‘will’ throughout and rewording the last two sentences as 
follows:

“In other words, when the discovery phase is complete, the EVPN PEs will have 
discovered all the PEs in the VPN instance along with their associated 
capability (EVPN or VPLS-only), whereas the VPLS PEs will have discovered all 
the PEs in the VPN instance as if they were all VPLS-only PEs.”


Section 3.3: 2nd paragraph:
“The EVPN PEs do not advertise the C-MAC address learned over PW to each other 
because every EVPN PE learns it directly over its associated PW to that VPLS 
PE.”
I think this should be:
“The EVPN PEs do not advertise the C-MAC address learned over the PWs to each 
other because every EVPN PE learns them directly over its associated PW to that 
VPLS PE. “

Section 3.3: 2nd and 3rd paragraph:
“….but this is the typical behavior of VPLS PEs.”. This would be clearer if it 
was a new sentence e.g.:
“Note that this is behavior typical of VPLS PEs.”

Section 5: Solution Advantages
As mentioned above, I don’t think we need to push advantages of a stand-alone 
and soon-to-be-standardised solution unless we are directly comparing it with 
something else. I suggest renaming this to ‘Solution Attributes”.

Section 6: Security consideration.

This section is far too light weight and I am concerned that the security area 
will have concerns. If there are really no additional considerations, then 
perhaps you could be more explicit as to what consideration from VPLS and EVPN 
do apply, and/or provide references.

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

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-03.txt

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

This poll for adoption is now closed and I think there is sufficient consensus 
to adopt it.

Note that the IPR declaration from Cisco was submitted on 20th April and can be 
accessed via the datatracker entry for this draft.

Authors: please upload a new version of the draft: 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-00

Regards

Matthew

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Monday, 9 April 2018 at 14:23
To: "draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpws-...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-03.txt

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption of 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-03.txt.

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Monday 23rd April.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane

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

Re: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

WG

This last call is now closed. Thanks to everyone for their review and comments.

Will request publication shortly, following my document shepherd’s review.

Regards

Matthew

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Wednesday, 28 March 2018 at 13:50
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-in...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 

Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: WG Last Call and IPR Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: , 
Resent-Date: Wednesday, 28 March 2018 at 13:50

This email begins a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.
If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.
We are also polling for any existing implementations.
The working group last call closes on Wednesday 11th April.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

Thanks Ali

I was away last week, but this WG last call is now closed. I’ll send a note to 
the list.

Regards

Matthew

From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" 
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2018 at 17:46
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-in...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 

Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: WG Last Call and IPR Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt

Hi Matthew, Stephane:

I have addressed all the comments during this WG LC period and have published 
rev03 of the draft. I believe the two-week period was ended last Wednesday.

Regards,
Ali

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:50 AM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-in...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 

Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: WG Last Call and IPR Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: Cisco Employee , , 
, 
Resent-Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:50 AM

This email begins a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.
If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.
We are also polling for any existing implementations.
The working group last call closes on Wednesday 11th April.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-03.txt

[Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)]

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption of 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-03.txt.

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Monday 23rd April.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane

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