[bess] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-14: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-14: 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 https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-redundant-mcast-source/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-14 CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. As usual with BESS document, the
text is not easy to understand by non-BESS readers, but I guess this is the
nature of this WG.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Mankamana Prasad Mishra for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Dirk Von Hugo, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-13-intdir-telechat-von-hugo-2025-01-15/
(and I have read Jorge's reply)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### No IETF Last Call RTG-dir review ?

Is there a reason why there were no request for an IETF Last Call review by RTG
directorate (only an early review) ?

In the same vein, any reason why the mcast WGs (at least PIM) were not copied
explicitly during the WG Last Call ? After all, this is mcast related.

### Section 1

Suggest adding a reference to the EVPN RFC.

s/Each receiver should receive only one of the multiple flows/Each receiver
should receive only from one source/ ?

### Section 1.1

Should references be added for IGMP, MLD, BIER, ...

### Section 1.3 and other places

The figure and text only use IGMP even if MLD is also supported (I hope).
Please use MLD only and indicate in the introduction that MLD stands for
IGMP/MLD.

### Section 4.1

As indicated by id-nits, the examples are IPv4-only. There should be some
examples (perhaps in other sections) with IPv6 as well.

### Section 5.3

Should a reference to BFD be added ?

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

Is there a reason why `Broadcast Domain` is capitalized ?

s/ethernet/Ethernet/

### Abstract

s/Layer 2 and Layer 3 services/layer-2 and layer-3 services/

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate
SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-)