Re: [bess] Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-08

[[e-mail]]

I’m fine with changes.

 

Thanks

 

 

From: BESS <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet)
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 7:31 PM
To: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [bess] Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-08

 

Thanks Stéphane, I am uploading v09 shortly.

 

The missing references to i.e. LACP are actually in the MCLAG section and
some of the “first expansions” you mention also : I think the best solution
is to simply move Fig1 down into there.

 

Let me know what you think

 

Regards,

Luc André

 


Luc André Burdet  |  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>   |  Tel:
[phone]

 

 

From: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 05:54
To: [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >, [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>  <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-08

Hi,

 

Here is my last review (as WG chair) of the draft, I have also requested a
GEN-ART review.

 

 

Abstract:

Use “RFC7432” as a plain text reference and not as a link (xml xtarget) in
the abstract.

 

 

Introduction:

 

s/QOS/QoS/


I think this sentence is useless in the text as previous one already
mentions the same: 

“A new type of load-balancing mode,

   Port-Active redundancy, is defined. “

 

Need to expand MC-LAG on first use

 

Don’t you need to provide an informative reference for LACP ? you may need
to expand it on first use.

Also don’t need to say “LACP protocol” , but just say “LACP”, P=protocol.

 

s/aca tive/active

 

 

Section 2:

Refer to LACP and expansion should be intro, not here.

 

s/must synchronize… data among them/ must synchronize… data between them/

 

 

Not able to parse this properly:

“as are LAG misconfiguration and miswiring detection across
   peering PEs.”
 
 

Section 3.1:

 

s/QOS/QoS

 

Expand DF abbrev (first use)

 

Section 3.2:

 

I think the term “Peering PEs” is unclear and may need a better wording.

 

On Bullet d., it would be worth using some normative language regarding the
usage of DF election.

 

Bullet f. first sentence should use normative language IMO. “SHOULD by
default implement” ? or MUST ?

 

Should bullet g. use normative language ? Would it be a MAY (optional) or
SHOULD (if highly recommended) ?

 

 

Section 4:

s/ new Port Mode Load-Balancing capability/ new Port Mode Load-Balancing
capability bit
 
 

 

Section 4.4:

Add reference to pref-df-draft
 
 

Section 4.5:

Add reference to RFC8584