Subject: [bess] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:18:59 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Thank you for the work put into this document. Even if I mainly rely on the
int-dir review (see below), I quickly reviewed the document and found it very
useful and readable.

Thanks to Ralf Weber who did the INT directory review, at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05-intdir-lc-weber-2020-08-28/

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT and NIT points.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==
-- Section 2  --
For my curiosity sake, why bit 5 of the 'Flags field' is not described? I would
have naively assumed that all flags would be contiguous.

== NITS ==

-- Section 2 --
While it is specified that the reserved fields are set to 0, the usual 'and
ignored by the receiver' is not present.

When describing the 'Router Flag', I suggest s/belongs to a router. /belongs to
an IPv6 router./ even if fairly obvious

---

From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:39:11 +0000

Hi Éric,

Thank you very much for reviewing.
Please see in-line below.
Thanks.
Jorge

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email-masked]>, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: No Objection

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==
-- Section 2  --
For my curiosity sake, why bit 5 of the 'Flags field' is not described? I would
have naively assumed that all flags would be contiguous.
[Jorge] Sure. When flag I was added, “draft-rbickhart-evpn-ip-mac-proxy-adv” had been published and there were implementations using bit 5. That’s the reason why we had to move the flag I, to avoid collisions.

== NITS ==

-- Section 2 --
While it is specified that the reserved fields are set to 0, the usual 'and
ignored by the receiver' is not present.
[Jorge] good point. I’ll add it in the next revision.

When describing the 'Router Flag', I suggest s/belongs to a router. /belongs to
an IPv6 router./ even if fairly obvious
[Jorge] sure, added it for the next revision.

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:59:51 +0000

Jorge

Thank you for the prompt reply: I appreciate the explanation for the ‘missing’ bit always nice to hear such stories ;-)

Regards,

-éric

From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 11:39
To: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: (with COMMENT)

Hi Éric,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==
-- Section 2  --

== NITS ==

-- Section 2 --