Re: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Stephane,

Would you please answer Murray's DISCUSS, below, regarding IPR for this draft?

Yours Irrespectively,

John


Juniper Business Use Only

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 2:34 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-
> 14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-
> positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!W78AS0i7NtIrTH6bLPDFceHsaPVHeM_Ej8CtuxDjgVuYYEhgGas-JhLfoo_6Pyg$
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-
> evpn-igmp-mld-proxy/__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!W78AS0i7NtIrTH6bLPDFceHsaPVHeM_Ej8CtuxDjgVuYYEhgGas-JhLf0GO7d-I$
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> There's an IPR disclosure on this document.  In the shepherd writeup, where a
> summary of the discussion of it is requested, it simply says "There are 3 IPRs
> disclosed".  I'd like to hear that summary, or at least confirm the discussion was
> had and there were no concerns as a result.
> 
> The IANA Considerations section needs some work:
> 
> (0) I suggest making each of the actions you want to take (there are four) into
> their own subsections of this section.
> 
> (1) "EVPN Extended Community sub-types registry" should be "EVPN Extended
> Community Sub-Types sub-registry of the BGP Extended Communities registry",
> which makes it easier to find.
> 
> (2) "Multicast Flags Extended Community" appears to be a new registry you're
> creating in the final action here.  BCP 26, for a First Come First Served registry,
> advises that a change controller column be included.  Are you intentionally
> omitting this here?  Or if this is referring to an existing registry, I wasn't able to
> find it.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Section 3 defines "NV" and "NVO", but these terms appear nowhere in the
> document.
> 
> Every SHOULD in this document, other than the ones that talk about logging, left
> me wondering why an implementer might decide not to follow that advice.
> Since SHOULD presents a choice, I suggest including some guidance about why
> it's a SHOULD, i.e., when one might decide not to do what it says and still expect
> to interoperate.  Or should some of these really be MUSTs?
> 
>