Return-Path: 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 6422112E88C; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 05:34:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 W1dsoIXG0Ieo; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 05:34:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 533C912D859; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 05:34:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x230.google.com with SMTP id u193so18944406oie.1; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 05:34:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fDHl+0KfV7l2BwGMG3SYnVWHJCZdN8D5miUyyrA+WCY=; b=sK2+RljTlYMJYM6qXekUpPmzdMaeuGc2aRrqy/yKN0hN7RWLc40vIpRLL4mLYquzvu Gs6Crn4vSVVP4FHVDHPDgI0IYWVhwtnytAhwMB+eNt9REKbC8fcDwGpIS60htuxeU8xn 1iynMvKzU0jSNIGmGMIui1ZZV6HvkztEsRCYUovUnWZBb+7uifhNoaPic/31SF/W796y x5PVOWzEsVhVbjXRsEDf7MN/N0kKE+DtUQm5KaP/i1T4hStiO6xxNwlrmutzAFAECOH2 3gCnV3PCsXkNc0Oo44oHo2Z5BwAIajr920hPFmVc0n720dUbSjwZJXoNV03h7Hy66Uuh WqqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fDHl+0KfV7l2BwGMG3SYnVWHJCZdN8D5miUyyrA+WCY=; b=H5IMZ2uldk2XbItcZjK1iPAOYlX2NPyWSmG0YswjZuxYpGzz/uPKIHvLz0LgZlhd53 UDV3kKWJuzapFHmfM3mUiNJnHr2/lLdiVTso3Ij1IGncO7xtEmSgVeGS8dAZpZP5wjcR 8JvqTU2HNqIk75V7avhf/JR6apv5OgnJES13jsIvDouu7NvTSQ8HYKxT63JjV8i951Rd LbixBkbRiu8IozUOMVGMflGXY2LMJLaW8uvU286DbSJC1vdTcu6OZtmWhQqdzQsiM/yU k+mYzfUjrz62X9GfIRoAV30yrNlZrW0puS+DefVOjbPA0Lxyjz1BfmqwlmyqtZSUmk6Q LWzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mI2nvlAGsWkMb7zO3EwiID/3M6naWPKAQqlZNrFLRimzl9f2fOw LOQhVoYEAjHle+lYRaY89kUkcmOrr3TzqCihPzE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotxLNxAcO2iN3qWli4DK1rmr2g6GuufW2scAzmyhWJ55qKcY87YJOrc0WKRy0hnygSsCxoQkerrpuI2VJdZ0xk= X-Received: by 10.202.114.88 with SMTP id p85mr9486694oic.214.1513949644610; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 05:34:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:34:03 -0500 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: <151386581037.12921.16380046165179697315@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <151386581037.12921.16380046165179697315@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:34:03 -0500 Message-ID: To: Vijay Gurbani , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay.all@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c17420c662550560edde50" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:34:08 -0000 --001a11c17420c662550560edde50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Vijay: Hi! Thanks for your review! The registry has a FCFS registration policy, so at some point in the life of draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay the code points were requested =E2=80=94 not necessarily in the draft itself. Even though draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay is tagged in the datatracker to have replaced draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay, I think you make a good point in that the registry needs to be updated with the current/correct information. Authors: Please add a note in the IANA Considerations Section to have the reference in the registry point to this document. Thanks! Alvaro. On December 21, 2017 at 9:16:53 AM, Vijay Gurbani (vkg@acm.org) wrote: Minor issues: In S13 (IANA Considerations), I am not sure whether this draft is allocatin= g the tunnel types or not. The responsible IANA registry [0] shows that the tunnel types mentioned in this draft are already allocated through a precursor individual draft [1], which has long expired. However, when I look at the IANA Consideration section in [1], it is empty! So I am not sure how the IANA registry in [0] received the allocations. I think the IANA section of this draft needs to be updated accordingly. [0] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#tunnel= -types [1] http://www.iana.org/go/draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay (the expired individual draft itself is at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay-03) --001a11c17420c662550560edde50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
Vijay:

<= /div>
Hi!

Thanks for your review!
<= div id=3D"bloop_customfont" style=3D"margin:0px"><= br>
The registry has a FCFS registration policy, so at some poi= nt in the life of=C2=A0draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay the code points were req= uested =E2=80=94 not necessarily in the draft itself.

Even though draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay is tagged in the datatra= cker to have replaced draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay, I think you make a good = point in that the registry needs to be updated with the current/correct inf= ormation.

Authors: =C2=A0Please add a note i= n the IANA Considerations Section to have the reference in the registry poi= nt to this document.

Thanks!

<= /font>
Alvaro.

On December 21, 2017 at 9:16:53 = AM, Vijay Gurbani (vkg@acm.org) wrote:

Minor issues:=C2=A0
In S13 (IANA Consi= derations), I am not sure whether this draft is allocating=C2=A0
the= tunnel types or not. The responsible IANA registry [0] shows that the=C2=A0
tunnel types mentioned in this draft are already allocated through= a precursor=C2=A0
individual draft [1], which has long expired. How= ever, when I look at the IANA=C2=A0
Consideration section in [1], it= is empty! So I am not sure how the IANA=C2=A0
registry in [0] recei= ved the allocations. I think the IANA section of this=C2=A0
draft ne= eds to be updated accordingly.=C2=A0<= /span>

[0]=C2=A0
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#tu= nnel-types=C2=A0
[1]=C2=A0http://www.iana.org/go/draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay=C2=A0(the expired indivi= dual=C2=A0
draft itself is at= =C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay-03<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:norm= al;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;= word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inlin= e!important">)=C2=A0
--001a11c17420c662550560edde50--