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

["Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,
new version uploaded where  NV and NVO removed since they were not 
used.   Please let me know if you have any comment.

Mankamana

On 11/22/21 2:14 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Murray,
>
>> 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 WG didn't raised any concern about the IPR disclosed for this document.
>
> Brgds,
>
> Stephane
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: jeudi 28 octobre 2021 08:34
> 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)
>
> 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://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-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-igmp-mld-proxy/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
>
>
>
>