Re: [bess] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 11 May 2017 13:52 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F84512ECEF; Thu, 11 May 2017 06:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9eCGxQAf3RWn; Thu, 11 May 2017 06:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A880512EBA3; Thu, 11 May 2017 06:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v4BDlFO4026019 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 11 May 2017 08:47:15 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws@ietf.org>, "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
References: <149447995711.16699.7473400423711449897.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7473B8FC-34C0-466F-AEC2-A9053DD9EE4E@cisco.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <b4314ffa-b932-9adc-0c33-3d396b7a7d64@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 08:47:09 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7473B8FC-34C0-466F-AEC2-A9053DD9EE4E@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/a04bf5WOeTuz82Iv5bb8ZgpB7nA>
Subject: Re: [bess] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:52:02 -0000
On 5/11/17 07:33, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > On 5/11/17, 1:19 AM, "Adam Roach" <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > > Adam: > > Hi! > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Looking at the Shepherd write up and the Ballot, I see no mention of the >> normative reference to RFC 7348, which is informational and part of the >> Independent Submission stream. As I mention in my comments below, I can't >> fully follow the technical contents of this document, but this seems like >> a red flag to me and -- as far as I can tell -- it hasn't been discussed >> yet. It's possible that the reference just ended up in the wrong section >> (and should actually be informative), but it's not immediately obvious on >> a casual examination whether that's true. > This document was originally scheduled for the Apr/27 Telechat, but as a result of Alia’s DISCUSS [1], the reference to rfc7348 was changed to Normative. The WG was cc’ed during the discussion, and I then reran the IETF LC with the downref explicitly mentioned [2]. I have no concerns about it. > > Yes, the Shepherd’s write-up should have been updated. Thanks for the clarification. I'm clearing my discuss. /a
- [bess] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-ev… Adam Roach
- Re: [bess] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-bes… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [bess] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-bes… Adam Roach