[bess] Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-05

slitkows.ietf@gmail.com Tue, 03 March 2020 09:28 UTC

From: slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment@ietf.org, "Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet)" <lburdet@cisco.com>
Cc: 'BESS' <bess@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 10:28:44 +0100
Message-ID: <079e01d5f13e$23561c90$6a0255b0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_079F_01D5F146.856F3440"
Content-Language: fr
Thread-Index: AdXxOKzBo+jSwuyKSjOLTpCOZeVZeg==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/Fji6iytDjnRuWpd9zUJ7hyJt8bw>
Subject: [bess] Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-05
Precedence: list

Hi Authors,

 

Please find  below my chair review:

 

Nits:

 

  == Missing Reference: 'ETH-OAM' is mentioned on line 606, but not defined
 
  == Missing Reference: 'MPLS-OAM' is mentioned on line 612, but not defined
 
  == Missing Reference: 'PW-OAM' is mentioned on line 612, but not defined
 
  == Missing Reference: 'EVPN-IRB' is mentioned on line 746, but not defined

 

 

Introduction:

There should be an issue with XML source as the reference to RFC7432 is not
a link.

 

Section 1.1:

The figure legend is not understandable as there are two many acronyms.

"Figure 1: DHD/DHN (both SA/AA) and SH on same ENNI"
 
Or It may be good to put terminology section before.
 

Section 1.2:

Similar comment for Figure 2

In addition, I'm wondering if there are some issues with the figure itself
regarding the attachment of EVCs.

Finally  section talks about Access MPLS Networks, but figure talks about
Aggregation Network. Of course this is applicable to both cases, but
legend/title/figure are not matching.

 

 

"  Since the PWs for the two VPWS instances can be
   aggregated into the same LSPs going to the MPLS network, a common
   virtual ES can be defined for LSP1 and LSP2.  This vES will be shared
   by two separate EVIs in the EVPN network."
 
Which MPLS network are you talking about ? Aggregation or IP/MPLS ? This is
ambiguous.
 
 
Section 3.1:
Can't we merge R1a,b, c and d as a single requirement ?
 
 
Section 3.2:
I'm a bit concerned about the scaling requirements. Scaling is always a
matter of platform resources and computing power. That's fine to have these
numbers in mind when building the protocol, however we can't be sure that
all platforms will be able to handle this numbers.
 
 
Section 3.4:
The requirements are not expressed correctly IMO. When reading R4a and b,
this definition/requirement comes indirectly from RFC7432. Shouldn't we use
something more tied to vES requirement like: a vES SHOULD support EVCs based
on a VLAN based/bundle service
 
 
Section 3.5
s/defult procedure/default procedure/

Needs also to comply to RFC8584 ?

 
 
Section 3.7
Need to create a new paragraph for R7b,c,d.
 
MHD and MHN are not expanded in terminology section.
 
 
Section 3.8:
Need a paragraph separation to introduce R8a.
 

 

Section 4.1:

Needs also to comply to RFC8584 ?

 

 

Brgds

 

Stephane

[bess] Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtu… slitkows.ietf
Re: [bess] Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-v… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)