Subject: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-05.txt

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 16:26:45 +0100

Hi authors of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay,

Here are a two comments on the changes in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-05:

> 5.1.3  Constructing EVPN BGP Routes
>
>    In EVPN, an MPLS label identifying forwarding table is distributed by

"identifying forwarding table" was inserted above in -05
Is the use of a per access circuit MPLS label really precluded ? Why ?

[...]
> 9 Support for Multicast
>
>    The E-VPN Inclusive Multicast BGP route is used to discover the
>    multicast tunnels among the endpoints associated with a given EVI
>    (e.g., given VNI) for VLAN-based service and a given <EVI,VLAN> for
>    VLAN-aware bundle service. The Ethernet Tag field of this route is
>    set as described in section 5.1.3.

It was agreed in June to strike this sentence, which does not seem to 
add any information.
( https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bess/current/msg01769.html )

Best,

-Thomas

---

From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:09:50 +0000

Hi Thomas,

>Is the use of a per access circuit MPLS label really precluded ? Why ?

It was added for clarification. To address your concern of not precluding
ACs, I¹ll change the sentence as below:

from: 	"In EVPN, an MPLS label identifying forwarding table is distributed
by"
to: 	"In EVPN, an MPLS label typically identifying forwarding table is
distributed by"

>( https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bess/current/msg01769.html )

John agreed to strike the last sentence and not the whole paragraph. And
frankly I think it is OK to keep the last sentence and to remind the
reader that the Ethernet Tag field is set per section 5.1.3. We are not
duplicating text here. We are just providing a reference.

Cheers,
Ali

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 15:20:43 +0100

Hi Ali,

> to: 	"In EVPN, an MPLS label typically identifying forwarding table is

This is better, although "for instance" would I think be more appropriate.

> John agreed to strike the last sentence and not the whole paragraph.

Indeed John agreed.
(I'm not sure why you mention striking the whole paragraph, I don't 
recall anyone asking that, and certainly not me)

> And frankly I think it is OK to keep the last sentence and to remind the

Mentioning *only* this field as being set as described in section 5.1.3 
can also be a possible source of confusion (are other fields set 
according to another section?).

I would suggest one of the following:
- strike the sentence
- say something like "all fields in this route are set as described in 
section 5.1.3"

Best,

-Thomas

---

From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:52:48 +0000

Hi Thomas,

I incorporated the two comments below and just published a new rev. I am
looking forward to the assignment of the doc. Shepard and his/her comments
so that we can wrap this up.

Regards,
Ali

>This is better, although "for instance" would I think be more appropriate.

Done. Changed it to “for instance”

>- say something like "all fields in this route are set as described in

O.K. Done!

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:03:28 +0100

Hi Ali,

> so that we can wrap this up.

Looks good to me.
As far as I know, WG LC comments have been addressed.

Thanks,

-Thomas