Subject: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11

From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:18:00 -0700

Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Has Nits

Thanks for the updates since the last version I reviewed (09) - The new version
is somewhat easier to follow but I still find it a hard read - no so hard as to
suggest holding the document for a rewrite but (imo) not as clear as it could be

My last review objected to a SHOULD being used in section 5.3.1 and that was
replaced by a  MUST, which I think is a better choice but you have added a new
SHOULD at the end of the same section and I have the same objection to the use
of SHOULD in this case - it is my opinion that a MUST is better than a SHOULD
unless you explain the exceptions to the SHOULD - so I think you need to change
the text to use MUST or you need to add text that explains when one would not
do what the text says to do

---

From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:21:10 +0000

Hi Scott,

Please see zzh> below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 10:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Has Nits

zzh> Hmm ... I did not add a new SHOULD - they were there before.
Zzh> The designated ASBR election is only needed when there are legacy PEs, and the DF Election EC is only needed when the election is needed. So, if it is known that there are no legacy PEs present, the DF Election EC is not needed and received DF Election EC will just be ignored. That's why I used SHOULD, and the ignore action is implied.
Zzh> I'll take your advice and simply change to MUST.
Zzh> Thanks!
Zzh> Jeffrey

Juniper Business Use Only