[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 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE79127601; Wed, 10 May 2017 22:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com, "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, bess-chairs@ietf.org, zzhang@juniper.net, bess@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149447995711.16699.7473400423711449897.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 22:19:17 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/dWk9KAgQjcWrPJRU75YTrc9Jm2I>
Subject: [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
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 05:19:17 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


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.


I strongly second Mirja's comment requesting positive confirmation from
the WG that is is collectively aware of the associated IPR

>From https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt:
> It is common in technical writing to abbreviate complex technical
> by combining the first letters.  The resulting abbreviations are
> called acronyms.  Editorial guidelines for the RFC series generally
> require expansion of these abbreviations on first occurrence in a
> title, in an abstract, or in the body of the document.

These guidelines go on to point out which acronyms are common enough not
to require expansion on first use. The following acronyms are not
considered common, and require expansion on first use *and* in the title
(I'm being very careful to cite only those which are *not* expanded on
first use, so each of these should be actionable):

- P2P
- MAC (which is, itself, ambiguous without an expansion on first use)
- PE
- CE
- L2
- DF
- iBGP
- eBGP

I don't think "encap" is a word.

I have not made a complete effort to understand the technical aspects of
this document as its acronym use is literally too thick for me to read
and comprehend its contents. I presume it is readable to its community of
interest (as three implementations already exist); but finding ways to
write in prose instead of acronyms where possible would be highly