[bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps

[Thomas Morin <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

There are minor things that could be improved in 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay wrt. consistency with 
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps :

* since draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps will deprecate RFC5512, it would be 
better that draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay refers to 
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps and not anymore to RFC5512.

* I think it would be better to avoid the explicit list of encap types 
in section 5.1.3, and rather refer to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps instead
* the following minor modification was proposed, but not yet incorporated:

    John Drake, 2015-11-13 (to BESS ML):
>     For the overlay draft, replace this text in section 5.1.3:
>
>     "If the BGP Encapsulation extended community is not present, then the default MPLS encapsulation or a statically configured encapsulation is assumed."
>
>     With the following:
>
>     "Note that the MPLS encapsulation tunnel type is needed in order to distinguish between an advertising node that only supports non-MPLS encapsulations and one that supports MPLS and non-MPLS encapsulations.  An  advertising node that only supports MPLS encapsulation does not need to advertise any encapsulation tunnel types;  i.e.,  if the BGP Encapsulation extended community is not present, then either MPLS encapsulation or a statically configured encapsulation is assumed."

I think this change is useful and should be incorporated, although 
skipping the last sentence would be wise if the full list of tunnel 
types is removed.

Thanks in advance,

-Thomas