Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On December 5, 2017 at 9:25:39 AM, [e-mail] (
[e-mail]) wrote:

>
>
> (2) Document Status
>
>
> Why is this a Standards Track document? The Abstract/Introduction
> say
> that “this document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) can be used
> as an
> NVO solution and explores applicability of EVPN functions and
> procedures.” -- if it’s just a description (as the text clearly
> is),
> and not a technical specification, then why it is not
> Informational?
> I can see how we could call it an Applicability Statement (rfc2026)
> and
> still publish it in the Standards Track. If we want to go that
> way, we
> would need some minor updates to make it clear that this is an
> Applicability Statement and is not intended to stand in for a
> Technical
> Specification. I am not clear on the process as it related to
> possible
> DownRefs (see below), but I’m willing to Last Call an Applicability
> Statement in the Standards Track…if that is what you want.
>
>
> Maybe the authors should s/describes/specifies/ to better reflect
> the
> content of the document.
> On the other hand, rfc2026 says "A Technical Specification is any
> description of a protocol, service, procedure, convention, or
> format."
> It seems to match as well.
>
>
> I agree that "specifies" is a better wording for the content of this
> document which does specify detailed procedures combining existing
> mechanisms. It certainly needs to be Standard Track.
>
Ok, that’s fine.

Alvaro.