Re: [bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <> Tue, 22 January 2019 08:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0DDA130EAC; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:29:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.053
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.053 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 MZ1-L73EDYFc; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B67E130EAA; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:29:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4914; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1548145748; x=1549355348; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=thwGOV3N23bVr+e1hQlgKyxozfAqyu6ABs7uFe8QMPc=; b=CZcI6SbhyrpSSNxDiTeoMVLcNL4kJ/lF66MJYTtponARioMvHvDUe2Lp VZjstlgqs5YFAJMMGkHTT1VpRaerrnlVInvBQKtn5KcRIHjq4thyVz2Fq IRDrwSNgAtVkBgODBTt0OIcpbnfc858RD563XcvV9E2FyqxqjbypHQFEl I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,505,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="229402329"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jan 2019 08:29:06 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0M8T6f2021700 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:29:06 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 03:29:05 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 03:29:05 -0500
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <>
To: Pete Resnick <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05
Thread-Index: AQHUl7YfCeEa+Lg6hkWnpOpvkZrVZqW691oA
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:29:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:29:11 -0000


Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below marked with "AS>".

On 12/19/18, 8:15 AM, "Pete Resnick" <> wrote:

    Reviewer: Pete Resnick
    Review result: Ready with Issues
    I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
    Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
    by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
    like any other last call comments.
    For more information, please see the FAQ at
    Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-0
    Reviewer: Pete Resnick
    Review Date: 2018-12-19
    IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-18
    IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
    Summary: Ready with some nits, but one process issue/query.
    Major issues: None
    Minor issues:
    This document is intended for Proposed Standard. It doesn't have protocol as
    much as operational configuration information for integration. RFC 2026 section
    5 says:
       The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
       standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.
       Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with
       the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
       computer communication across interconnected networks.  However,
       since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
       variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user
       service requires that the operators and administrators of the
       Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.
    That sounds like what this document is doing. It also sounds like this document
    is unlike to advance to Internet Standard, as there's not the kind of iterative
    implementation that protocols go through. It's not a big deal either way, but
    this does seem better suited to a BCP.

AS> I added couple of sentences to the abstract and introduction explaining why this draft should be "standard". 
    Nits/editorial comments:
    Abstract: s/draft/document/g

AS> done
    Introduction: "Many Service Providers (SPs) who...". You don't use "SP"
    anywhere else in the document, and other places where you use the phrase it
    isn't capitalized. Suggest just saying "Many service providers who..."

AS> done
    §1, Definitions:
       (PBB-)VPLS: refers to both, PBB-VPLS and VPLS. As for EVPN, this
       abbreviation is used when the text applies to both technologies.
    It says EVPN in the second sentence. I don't understand. Did you mean VPLS?

AS> The intention was to say "just like EVPN, ... " However, this is creating some confusion. So, I changed it to:
" (PBB-)VPLS: refers to both, PBB-VPLS and VPLS. This document uses this abbreviation when a given description applies to both technologies."
    §2: The 4 "MUST"s and 1 "MAY" aren't requirements on the implementation;
    they're the requirements this document will satisfy. Seems like they shouldn't
    be capitalized.

AS> already corrected. Alvaro had the same comment.
    §3.2, second bullet, 3.4.1, last paragraph, §4.2, second bullet, and §4.4.1,
    last paragraph: Why are the "must"s not capitalized?
AS> already corrected. Thanks for noting them.