Subject: Re: [bess] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:53:52 -0800

On December 30, 2017 at 7:00:05 AM, Spencer Dawkins (
[email-masked]) wrote:

Spencer:

Hi!  Happy New Year!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Both the Abstract and Introduction contain text like this:

This specification is also applicable to GENEVE encapsulation;
however, some incremental work is required which will be covered in a
separate document.

and the Introduction references draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve-00.txt, which

looks like an individual -00 draft. I wonder if it would be better to drop
the
promise from this document, and make the relationship clear in whatever
version
of draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve is published.

I'm fine with the working group publishing this draft with the promise
included, but wanted to ask while we're reviewing it, rather than later.

We added that in mainly because the nvo3 WG’s focus on Geneve…

Alvaro.