[bess] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-18: (with COMMENT)

["Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your comments. I took care of them and published rev19. Please refer to my comment resolution details below marked with “Ali>”.

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 at 10:31 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet) <[e-mail]>, Matthew Bocci <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-18: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-18: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-18
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document even if *it took 10 years* to get
to the IESG evaluation stage ;-). John Scudder wrote a leading text that I
fully share: `I found this document hard to review, for various reasons, so I
don't really consider this a complete review.`.

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

Special thanks to Luc André Burdet for the shepherd's write-up including the WG
consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Brian Haberman, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-13-intdir-telechat-haberman-2023-09-06/
(and I have read Ali's reply)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Abstract and section 1

It looks more like an acronym soup (i.e., difficult for me to understand what
it is about) with a commercial ad twist `introduce a comprehensive suite of
solutions`and `These solutions offer advanced features`.
Ali>  Modified it to: “These solutions offer advanced multi-homing capabilities.”


s/This draft outlines/This document specifies/ as it is a proposed standard
(similar cases happen through the whole document)
Ali> Done!


### Section 1.2

Once vES acronym is introduced, then there is no need to re-expand it multiple
times.
Ali> Done!


### Section 3.5

This section is more on monitoring than OAM. Suggest renaming the section.
Ali> Changed it to “EVC Monitoring” to be more specific.



## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Use of SVG

Suggest trying the "aasvg" tool to have nicer graphics in HTML/PDF rendering
(worth a try).

Ali> I will let the RFC editor to do it.