Re: [bess] [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps

Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 06:19 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2584D12B043 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AUycssyysc2S for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDD9C12D137 for <bess@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id BBCD95FB533E8; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:19:22 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u586JPTI032681 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:19:25 GMT
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u586JOIm004434 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:19:24 +0200
Received: from [135.224.200.76] (135.239.27.40) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:19:24 +0200
Message-ID: <5757B8E6.3070106@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 08:19:18 +0200
From: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
References: <5729F1C3.1030605@orange.com> <012C176C-A8D6-45AA-BA69-616C0ED7E41E@alcatel-lucent.com> <SN1PR0501MB1709E1AF8C398791421E2123C77B0@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <420BA2D8D80A6727.2B2C290F-2299-40BB-B53B-CC36D2B5D826@mail.outlook.com> <1881_1462451514_572B3D3A_1881_7198_1_0vn90oitr7e881gh2sn8qm5f.1462451509961@email.android.com> <SN1PR0501MB17099CA0122BA8B4C3F99E7EC77C0@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <17029_1462484835_572BBF63_17029_2323_1_opi9hqsl9b9tani0t0skkcuq.1462484831251@email.android.com> <SN1PR0501MB170976E947BEABC8FD591ED8C77C0@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <28175_1463566739_573C4192_28175_2444_1_613f729b-d12e-5c48-29a1-ff000c1184a1@orange.com> <SN1PR0501MB17090A6F0AC5D3D447E21C28C7490@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D369475E.1A2CD7%sajassi@cisco.com> <SN1PR0501MB1709EA8CE5E1B3C52862015DC74F0@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <575680F5.2030101@alcatel-lucent.com> <D37C3C0F.1A9A44%sajassi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D37C3C0F.1A9A44%sajassi@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.40]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/2x9KwerfVBft-9qpkkFskNUVeWE>
Subject: Re: [bess] [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 06:19:31 -0000

Thank you Ali

Le 07/06/2016 18:04, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) a écrit :
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> We¹ll also add idr-tunnel-encaps a Informative reference. With respect to
> Tunnel Encap Extended Community (which is the only part of
> idr-tunnel-encap used by evpn-overlay draft), idr-tunel-encap draft itself
> references RFC 5512.
>
> During the course of WG LC and RFC editorship of evpn-overlay draft, if we
> see that idr-tunnel-encap is progressing fast, then we can drop the
> reference to RFC 5512 and make the reference to idr-tunnel-encap
> Normative. Otherwise, we¹ll keep both references with RFC 5512 as
> Normative and idr-tunnel-encap as Informative.
>
> Regards,
> Ali
>
> On 6/7/16, 1:08 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"
> <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are fine with keeping 5512 as the Normative reference for now.
>> We would think it wise if the editors can add an Informative reference
>> to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps (with some text indicating that both
>> specs provide the required support for the procedures).
>> The ideal situation would be that tunnel-encaps progresses fast enough
>> so that in the last stages before publishing evpn-overlay we can be in a
>> situation to make tunnel-encaps the Normative reference. RFC 4897 would
>> facilitate that by the way.
>>
>> If the WG has specific opinions on that matter, they are welcome.
>>
>> We take good note of the shepherd suggestion. We'll confirm who will
>> shepherd the document after WG LC (we'll also call for volunteers during
>> WG Last Call).
>>
>> Reviews are highly welcome anyway, in particular from people
>> close to the topic or implementations, and ideally from more than one
>> person, the best time being now or at least before the WG LC ends.
>>
>> We'll start the WG LC in a couple of days.
>>
>> Martin & Thomas
>>
>>
>> Le 24/05/2016 15:39, John E Drake a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Ali and I decided to keep the normative reference to RFC 5512 rather
>>> than changing it to Eric¹s tunnel encapsulation draft because the
>>> normative reference pre-dates Eric¹s draft and because our draft does
>>> not use any of the new capabilities introduced in Eric¹s draft.
>>>
>>> Ali and I would also like to request that Jorge be the document shepherd
>>> for this draft.
>>>
>>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> *From:*Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:05 AM
>>> *To:* John E Drake; EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com; IDR; BESS;
>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
>>> US); draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap@tools.ietf.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs.
>>> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I have updated and published rev03 of even-overlay draft.
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay/
>>>
>>> The main changes are:
>>>
>>>   1. section 10.2 ­ DCI using ASBR
>>>   2. The setting of Ethernet tag and VNI fields ­ there were some
>>>      inconsistencies in different sections. Section 5.1.3 captures the
>>>      setting of these fields for different type of services in pretty
>>>      good details. All other sections were cleaned up and now refer to
>>>      section 5.1.3.
>>>
>>> Thomas,
>>>
>>> The draft is ready for its long-overdue WG LC considering how long its
>>> has been around and its multi-vendor implementation status.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ali
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>