[bess] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-11: 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://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are there two algorithms (Highest-Preference and Lowest-Preference)?[0]
This seems operationally dangerous and will lead to additional operational
complexity, tricky to debug behaviors, additional implementation complexity,
etc. Assuming that there *is* a good reason (and "Well, we couldn't decide,,
so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" isn't one) these should be a section helping operators decide
which algorithm they should deploy, and the pro's and con's of each.

[0]: I did try and find this, but the closest I got was a note in the Shepherd
Writeup saying: "There was a "last minute" agreement on managing the
highest/lowest pref algorithm using different DF algs rather than a single
one+local configs." -- this doesn't actually answer the question.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support John Scudder's DISCUSS, as well as his comments -- the Introduction
seems quite incomplete, and just sort of throws the reader into the deep end.