Re: [bess] [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps

Hi,

We are fine with keeping 5512 as the Normative reference for now.
We would think it wise if the editors can add an Informative reference 
to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps (with some text indicating that both 
specs provide the required support for the procedures).
The ideal situation would be that tunnel-encaps progresses fast enough 
so that in the last stages before publishing evpn-overlay we can be in a 
situation to make tunnel-encaps the Normative reference. RFC 4897 would 
facilitate that by the way.

If the WG has specific opinions on that matter, they are welcome.

We take good note of the shepherd suggestion. We'll confirm who will 
shepherd the document after WG LC (we'll also call for volunteers during 
WG Last Call).

Reviews are highly welcome anyway, in particular from people
close to the topic or implementations, and ideally from more than one
person, the best time being now or at least before the WG LC ends.

We'll start the WG LC in a couple of days.

Martin & Thomas

Le 24/05/2016 15:39, John E Drake a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Ali and I decided to keep the normative reference to RFC 5512 rather
> than changing it to Eric’s tunnel encapsulation draft because the
> normative reference pre-dates Eric’s draft and because our draft does
> not use any of the new capabilities introduced in Eric’s draft.
>
> Ali and I would also like to request that Jorge be the document shepherd
> for this draft.
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
> John
>
> *From:*Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:05 AM
> *To:* John E Drake; EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com; IDR; BESS;
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
> US); draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap@tools.ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs.
> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps
>
> Folks,
>
> I have updated and published rev03 of even-overlay draft.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay/
>
> The main changes are:
>
>  1. section 10.2 – DCI using ASBR
>  2. The setting of Ethernet tag and VNI fields – there were some
>     inconsistencies in different sections. Section 5.1.3 captures the
>     setting of these fields for different type of services in pretty
>     good details. All other sections were cleaned up and now refer to
>     section 5.1.3.
>
> Thomas,
>
> The draft is ready for its long-overdue WG LC considering how long its
> has been around and its multi-vendor implementation status.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ali
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>