Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

On 2/21/17, 12:39 PM, "Sami Boutros" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Sami:

Hi!

> Please see comments inline. I have submitted 09.

I just have a couple of small things below, the biggest being the 24-bit alignment – which seems to be resolved on the list.

I’m going to start the IETF Last Call, but please update the draft when you get a chance.

Thanks,

Alvaro.

…
> > > > M5.1. Section 3: “Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field is set to the 24-bit VPWS service instance 
> > > > identifier” 
> > > > How should this be aligned into the larger field?
> > >  
> > > Sami: Changed the text to "This document specifies the use of the per EVI Ethernet A-D route 
> > > to signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to the customer ES and 
> > > the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to the 24-bit VPWS service instance identifier 
> > > value."
> >
> > Ok, but you still didn’t mention how the 24-bit value is to be aligned in the 32-bit field.  I’m 
> > guessing there will be some 0-padding, but will that the at the beginning or the end?
> >
>
> I made the VPWS service instance identifier a 32-bit value in the new draft.

I also like Patrice’s suggestion [1]

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/hYuoAvF4eeYVSRRrlVi8MQMOf3Y/?qid=50f2dee8ec109478be61f1e0aefd03a5 


…
> > > > P2. The [MEF] reference didn’t work for me; on all tries the connection timed out.  Is it 
> > > > possible to find a more stable reference?
> > > 
> > > Sami: No clue here!
> > How about this:  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__www.mef.net_Assets_Technical-5FSpecifications_PDF_MEF-5F6.1.pdf&d=DwIGaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=IVzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX-2K-LV98&m=GH5FIfqtBUACPwx-LVV2v5zPrGcNzhCEjfj8-0-R2OI&s=5b19ceQDqdsz0TepqsV7daJoYm9uDMyco7BZ4NeICWU&e=   ??
> > 
> 
> Thanks,

Sorry, I don’t know why we ended up with that long thing, this is the short one: https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_6.1.pdf


> > …
> > > > P9. There is no Reference to any of the Extended Communities RFCs: 4360, 7153, etc…
> > >
> > > Sami: Done.
> >
> > We still need a reference to rfc4360 – at least in Section 3.1 where the new community is 
> > defined.
> >
> > You did add a reference to rfc7153, but it is not used in the text. ☹  There’s no point in having it 
> > if it isn’t used!
> 
> I changed the text as follow in 3.1 and added/removed the above references.
>
> "This draft proposes a new extended community, defined below as per [RFC7432] in addition to 
> the values specified in [RFC4360]"

This is enough: “This draft proposes a new extended community [RFC4360]…”.