Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-09

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Wed, 07 June 2017 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723211270A7; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 15:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I8-VonJmq9DY; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 15:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BB431293E3; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 15:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9362; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1496874382; x=1498083982; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=UfQssnPyFFiI5zJo+6CULAeMSszV4Eof3w77qvEtb7E=; b=CE9cyJ5OteCC10vbFMr976Wm3nMQGQ+18JqXqYiAnK9HBVPMKXEC1aAG hjQD5KJkDKEEBPYo6yQZS5c4lridHoDDk6e38QY2ieAwvYeer/lwTLOpA a3N5e3CKMV8Hu597hq39ax/7b+7jbZk+d64CjCFwsMalLBnA1HmYbyY3o o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,311,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="253073146"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Jun 2017 22:26:21 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v57MQLDt019514 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:26:21 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:26:20 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:26:20 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, Thomas Morin <>
Thread-Topic: AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-09
Thread-Index: AQHSrYuq8cG6jBFZoU6tpElXD7ib+aHswcQAgASc/gCAAA/rAIAoVP2AgAAz9wCAAHg2gA==
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 22:26:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7A2281ED4BB04C3D87D0DBFAC83B057Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-09
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: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 22:26:24 -0000

On 6/7/17, 3:16 PM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <<>> wrote:



> 1)  I will get a registry for them set up when there will be more than one flag. Currently, there is only a
> single flag defined and we do not anticipate any additional flags at this point.

To be clear: without the registry defined the specification is incomplete.  If possible, consider the case where someone else (not one of the authors) wants to use one of the flags, what should be the policy for them to define it?  Should it be first come first served, or would the WG prefer a Designated Expert to review the potential assignment, is it ok for an experimental draft to request assignment, or is a Standards Track document the only way?

We’ve probably already written more text than the actual policy definition would take… <sigh>

> 2) regarding removing P2MP mention (so that it get generalized to MP2MP), I will do that but will
> add a sentence to say the other tunnel types that are supported by EVPN – e.g., currently P2MP are
> supported but in the future MP2MP can also be supported. So, I don’t wan to exclude MP2MP. I can
> add his sentence during the RFC editing phase, is that OK?

That is ok with me.