Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <> Thu, 17 January 2019 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B851271FF; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:29:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aATowaf-1lCu; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D416A12958B; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c206so7278304oib.0; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:29:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ta2nJ3rws6KhEMOsMjs2Vv1hILVa/rreKmR38TkKkrE=; b=mDFwE6YSO4Cc5HHULLPHDVvC/NXpcxLF9KE5sAJBcvBszGrBoAF9oaBvHeJAXYK6dd b2+4Bv2tGAhPz/xDg+QgJzwGRZq8a7uYy8EFgSOSoa62G/nxiTL8f+zfNgWW5IOXwCRs rYMbrQ5KeQ33rQ3UzlsNR9NbwPo1xJGbredk1Y8nbjkVkmmsL85Jsqv4fW0uysOWVzXW zFsZo+8m/epHojy5MBqiznZpMFFICZg81F9FYHwHBZ0bsh2fmi5adSjPWGxNoHSRBrTV 965TaPalFt+LbYnEU581YiNTu8DPPmoNl/XQQj6dJv53PGnNpo+Rgk70am9u7QD5ufVb duiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ta2nJ3rws6KhEMOsMjs2Vv1hILVa/rreKmR38TkKkrE=; b=cQMCNW/j6YD8mGppP2HoqUPLKmMooyX1pv19SwnM7I2q2ruEjo96DD8q53J849TrBv W3STKb2hBryq4vE3T0Fq7Xb6eWxwS/KfrnneIJaYVzjjYVUYT4f0suDnKnsZEQCvFkmT pGgHxc9TpBABbxxyAL2Guo0IIuDIM9/sR1paTWOAPEsBZYXBI/QD1CgPeYx7KgSw0L7S HggfxNTSpA1LB4Xe927lCcMadxsVpNe7lPkclsssrm5mrol8puT1dfypLfnvYw81P+QQ 0RtjIUUP3l4mo3NwGhOXO92cMmM3jhDLPyvvly1Dh4MRGENgeQFuiDy4eRDeZi1VtVs9 zTXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcc4Hvdzult1nHwzPRT88g/grMjxesczF4lg1blwkKfTeT3rj3H 92ahGFkZx5x09bPQz82cQJa5JDubkjCKArKAXZfOQQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4JmoLVEOF1QJPkV7couM3kln8ml6KaUiik7eS3ATF6/+Mt/sFaGBiVHhG8A+NHkYsbvvOjn60KRszUQceN2p4=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:aa81:: with SMTP id t123mr8949565oie.218.1547756962729; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:29:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:29:22 +0100
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:29:22 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: The IESG <>, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Stephane Litkowski <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f65261057fad3f3c"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 20:29:26 -0000

On January 17, 2019 at 12:55:33 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain
View) ( wrote:


Thanks for all the answers.

I’ll leave any decision to change up to Martin. :-)



(6) The HRW1999 reference must be Normative.
[JORGE] please check out the discussion with Adrian and Satya related to
this, where Adrian recommended to move it to informative references.

I don’t think that was Adrian’s intent when he said: "HRW1999 is provided
as a normative reference, and from the text I can see why.”

In any case, I think the reference has to be Normative because HRW "must be
read to...implement the technology in the new RFC”.

[JORGE] we can change it as long as it does not create any issues. By the
way, sorry, I provided the wrong Adrian’s email. I should have sent this:

“In general (and I think your draft is an example of this) it is possible
to describe/rewrite the pieces of normative text without infringing
copyright. That usually reduces the reference to Informative and provides
enough information in the RFC for implementation. Your draft is an example
of this because you have described the algorithms in your text with enough
detail to allow an implementation: the reference is really only there to
provide context and proof of the algorithms. (And anyway, having found a
freely accessible copy of the reference in your draft, we are probably home
and dry.)”

Let us know if you still want us to change it to normative, please.