Re: [bess] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with COMMENT)

Robert Raszuk <> Sun, 07 May 2017 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C86128B4E; Sun, 7 May 2017 10:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 otDTb3wqExHW; Sun, 7 May 2017 10:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65CE512441E; Sun, 7 May 2017 10:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f102so38198261ioi.2; Sun, 07 May 2017 10:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=pmjHCazBBctvnUeBL8x/jhcY7Wwz83AiqCvtXo5GjTk=; b=Ee/Ru6kHUjw1a+63kHnD0if5KsJtDyofltHc+Rp+/kie13y0uHqNADjLjl9Zel1pO1 IktemjEtWgemNH87S7RijpYF8eFwFmJPWI4OmmEkbpuvrDMarvq5vgBrV9gqjb/K1p2/ MrSAAn4FxoUYjEi8wkG9hm/Qb/6NPf78Yp7sDwqcMIYqNa46e4ivQc4wnzuTi7ofZu4J qOdD561JOZtD+lLARijJqIBJLbOpuhbXtPeHnAWkguy/kHz9qzrK9iCUAYy/qBZ7OxzN YSX/nxUIBh3qnPuzkuLqgOy2yZY7toX2KJrsJEVt9Kn4eCVhNREVM+Px5fRTg/vOVwb2 KgBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pmjHCazBBctvnUeBL8x/jhcY7Wwz83AiqCvtXo5GjTk=; b=pVYCViPz2grP87MnJ5BJQRh46eT0/apmPcD3HjbEVt59fd+/pJY+1kQ4OlnF5X8PSb XcPxZGMyE99zEDmc8VePad3jyEcyn7hGYtUYJe/amMyasu4aVQVwnMwvxtnLB6774TXt Bdt5LiI3IgpXqevV6kZ7OYJLBzEqugFNrwzT2Ynr530Hg1BKQSUhHfI1rZPOEnZQQ5GK x6hylaIF9RLINm82gdUrG3FrK0AAN6r+JUSaAD7d2UdYjThYTacgBP7CFPmFcLyWrtXg xPuNMq0JRJIe4Gm5wa2E1kFmKha34NZDjk6HXwWUXMskSC9ko0ftvK+B0sC7JNTjuz3P 86UQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7+Nu4GIczzFS6IyNimaR6AzPYVvqV27dbFBOlNtzNC1vqMMYdP f6LxZwlsvn6SgIhPag2CM/z0NG18eA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 12mr46535584iof.186.1494178516776; Sun, 07 May 2017 10:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 7 May 2017 10:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 19:35:16 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: UVjnOgDvvOt9GQN3R7sbW36Ceag
Message-ID: <>
To: Warren Kumari <>
Cc: The IESG <>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <>,,, "" <>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ef634b94289054ef28b9a"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with COMMENT)
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: Sun, 07 May 2017 17:35:20 -0000

Hi Warren,

In the draft you have reviewed EVPN term is use interchangeably with term
[RFC7432] which in turn is also already listed and defined in the Normative
References section (2nd from the top).

Personally if you assume that the reader of this document is not familiar
with EVPN I would also recommend to read few other L2 VPN related documents
as prerequisite before jumping to this one:

- RFC 7209 and all VPN related documents included in its references

- RFC 7432 and all VPN related documents included in its references

- all VPN related documents included in references of

- only then the draft in question itself.

Kind regards,

On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Warren Kumari <> wrote:

> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: No Objection
> 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ For -11 / -12 ]
> This document is very heavy on the acronyms, and could do with some
> expanding of these -- for example, the document starts out with "This
> document describes how EVPN can be used...". I'm no MPLS VPN person, so
> much time was spent searching to try figure out what everything meant.
> I also agree with Spencer's "In multihoming scenarios, both B and P flags
> MUST NOT be both set. " being hard to parse, and disagree with Acee that
> is it clear.
> [ For -13 ]
> The draft was revised to address Alia's DISCUSS, and also Spencer's
> "traditional way" and "both B and P flags MUST NOT be both set" comment,
> but still does not expand EVPN; I also agree with Spencer that it would
> be helpful to expand P2P on first use.  I reread the document and have
> some additional comments - note that these are are only comments, but I
> think that they would make the document more readable...
> 1: Introduction:
> "that in EVPN terminology would mean a single pair of Ethernet Segments
> ES(es)." - I'm confused by the 'ES(es)' - guessing this was an editing
> failure and 'Ethernet Segments (ES)' was intended? If not,
> You use both "Ethernet AD" and "Ethernet A-D" - please choose and stick
> with one.
> 1.1: Terminology:
> "EVI: EVPN Instance." --  Ok, but EVPN is still not defined /
> referenced.
> 3.1  EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community
> " A PE that receives an update with both B and P flags set MUST treat
> the
>  route as a withdrawal. If the PE receives a route with both B and P
>  clear, it MUST treat the route as a withdrawal from the sender PE."
> Do the above 2 sentences say the same thing? It sure sounds like
> repetition, if not, please explain the difference. If not, removing one
> would make this less confusing.
> Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model
> You use the terms / labels "PSN1", "PSN2" - what are these? "Provider
> <something> Network"?
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list