Re: [bess] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-05

["Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jorge,

Thanks for the revision.
Please see zzh> below for two comments.



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 10:33 AM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>; Kiran Nagaraj (Nokia) <[e-mail]>; Wen Lin <[e-mail]>; 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'BESS' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-05

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Jeffrey,

Thanks very much for the review. Version 6 is published addressing your comments.

Please see in-line.

Thanks!
Jorge



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:34 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Kiran Nagaraj (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Wen Lin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: 'BESS' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-05

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.



Hi,

I have the following comments/suggestions/questions:

Idnits reported:

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8365, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
[Jorge] good point. Added.


Would this update 7432 as well?
[Jorge] since 7432bis obsoletes 7432 and refers to this document, it is probably ok not to say it updates 7432... but I don't have a strong opinion. It may depend on how fast 7432bis progresses as well?

Zzh> 7432bis WGLC has not happened yet, so I believe this one will go before 7432bis and should update 7432.


  == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of
     draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-05

I normally don't reference a specific revision of a document, unless the revision number matters. If you remove the revision in the reference, you'll not need to worry about updating it again.
[Jorge] sure, done.


Given that this is ahead of rfc7432bis, the "EVPN ESI Multihoming Attributes" registry creation for the 1-octet Flags field in the ESI Label Extended Community should be moved to this draft.
[Jorge] As long as this document it is really ahead of 7432bis, sure. We added it to the IANA section, and we can always remove it if 7432bis goes out before this one.

Zzh> I should have noticed it earlier, but now I think the name "EVPN ESI Multihoming Attributes" is a bit confusing. I think it's better called "EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags" registry. In addition, all existing bits should also be documented in the registry-creation request.
Zzh> Thanks!
Zzh> Jeffrey


"MPLS-based IP Tunnel" does not seem to be accurate to me. It should be "IP-based MPLS Tunnel". Related to that, the three tunnel types can be renamed to:

- IP-based MPLS Tunnel
- (SR-)MPLS Tunnel
- IP Tunnel

I don't think we need "group" in terms like "group MPLS-based IP" - it can simply be "IP-based MPLS".
[Jorge] ok, changed


There a few references like the following:

   [RFC9012] BGP Encapsulation extended community

I believe the reference should be put after the relevant text:

   BGP Encapsulation extended community [RFC9012]
[Jorge] ok, fixed.



Thanks.
Jeffrey

Juniper Business Use Only