Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Zhaohui

Thank you for your reply, I am OK with your answers.

Regards

-éric

On 19/10/2021, 20:56, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Eric,

    Thanks for your comments. Please see zzh> below.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
    Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 7:34 AM
    To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
    Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
    Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11: (with COMMENT)

    [External Email. Be cautious of content]


    Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QSe_FVZLy9LiJjxKR9913uZakS6q0nf4lprT6--xZZ7CwkXwfslLa8KJOu_WRx2D$
    for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QSe_FVZLy9LiJjxKR9913uZakS6q0nf4lprT6--xZZ7CwkXwfslLa8KJOljIAkWT$



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

    Thank you for the work put into this document.

    Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
    appreciated even if only for my own education).

    Special thanks to Zheng Zhang for his shepherd's write-up about the WG
    consensus.

    I hope that this helps to improve the document,

    Regards,

    -éric

    -- Section 3 --

    It is a little unclear whether the first list of values are applicable to the
    'route type' field. The reader can only guess when reading the pre-amble to the
    2nd list.

    Zzh> Yes they're applicable to the 'route type' field. I will change the following text:

       "So far eight types have been defined in [RFC7432] ..."

    Zzh> to the following (adding "route"):

       "So far eight route types have been defined in [RFC7432] ..."

    -- Section 5.1 --
    The text in this section appears to also update RFC 7117: "The following bullet
    in Section 7.2.2.2 of [RFC7117]: ... s changed to the following when applied to
    EVPN:". Should this document also formally update RFC 7117 ?

    Zzh> RFC 7117 is for VPLS, though we're borrowing some of its text for EVPN BUM (with changes pointed out when applied to EVPN) instead of repeating the text. Because of that, this does not update RFC 7117 (because we're not changing the procedures for VPLS).

    Zzh> Thanks!
    Zzh> Jeffrey


    Juniper Business Use Only