Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track

<> Thu, 08 February 2018 08:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0089612D876; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:14:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.618
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bS0FvgdBcTjL; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:14:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFCCF12D874; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.8]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 9B781615EE; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:14:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.13]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6AD558007B; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:14:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM6D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::54f9:a6c3:c013:cbc7%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:14:18 +0100
From: <>
To: Eric C Rosen <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:14:17 +0000
Message-ID: <30916_1518077658_5A7C06DA_30916_9_4_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EB3CE19@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <7712_1514984470_5A4CD416_7712_401_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EB01322@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EB3CE19OPEXCLILMA4corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track
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: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:14:39 -0000

Ok thanks

From: Eric C Rosen []
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 17:57
Subject: Re: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track

On 1/16/2018 11:29 AM, Eric C Rosen wrote:

"If the LIR-pF flag is set in a given PTA, the LIR flag of that PTA

   SHOULD also be set."

[SLI] Why not using a MUST ?

[Eric] If all the PEs support the LIR-pF flag, the procedures will work as intended even if the LIR flag is not set.  So I don't think a MUST is appropriate.

Thinking about this more, I now think you are right that MUST would be better.  By saying MUST, we remove an unnecessary variation in behavior.


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.