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

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 05 December 2017 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A4D126B6D; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:11:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A8l2z7K2a75Q; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x244.google.com (mail-oi0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56BDF124319; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x244.google.com with SMTP id w125so1291647oie.7; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:11:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VMIymbZF9VYQ685CmHvZmtvPJdpMNgcmdHrD+LyXSA0=; b=Tq2O9gYG1BxH/kAg0Ehmw6N9kQqXXr02KLP408EFWPBksOJTGtlzTCLApUKJY2eMBZ akWLsFpfOY6z+mojmq/pL/QJAwl7OhdZ5lra0PyP/HbWtnEpwk6QiTGulmXf3SuX7tUA ytfBQGGnGQ+V2zNwYB71sVT9ZnPCGJHNC+0OP7pVCAGtYXlhtWyxLaAG8B6MY0DezTs8 Qw2JJnz3ZWmNlpLKJOtotfm4vpvYS860TmHw+KnwJ53QPCZkZVe3bOcdda8NbZU6FtSt f5m/1Dgn9R5uMSAgsf45vF2ma+aUwoSwdfF5/kuvYK95c5r+cdh6XJUTA/D22U+d72aV OZ3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VMIymbZF9VYQ685CmHvZmtvPJdpMNgcmdHrD+LyXSA0=; b=Gh60e32jW0xX/mQYkVDzQ1IcyXL3Q+mFhontM/ld3ksJBOhNRgTBt0HMThc2w63W13 vXJd58qa9oCMkC93t0EGSmtAt5VJfsHtT4hG6pG5xlerc+znxFCX98fm/6i65WKcp3Vo J6iQaZSfu1JYEtGWc+8SwCRVUJcARu+I1dOxsbhggoKryy/jZ6VEa8H+JiMwtbwB1P0r Y4xY9wcMtzCFWAAvmS08NyNn0aI1KcKGs8k244znpVfprWF4YUUNwhulldFb/oMti95c cx86aE7xNab2SsfEZ2WofjQxrP51Dh1x9g7oYHntms8/fYvlTZYPrpahdDpWwR9OG1Ng c/HQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5HRhSWgKhBQYP0AvOfouoO22SovwsIGkVajDa9uWG27iUicsZL bAYpiv11gaTktqXU3/XbRZ9sE8hpCuVxb31jlMs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZTqu8NP+rHRarJd4bstmLSGojV6DQ25pxWaQcEM9g2vq+flR0X8rEaIF9pidZ1ZS+W+DvuQ38XJit52bMMxT4=
X-Received: by 10.202.218.68 with SMTP id r65mr18421674oig.308.1512511912718; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:11:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 895490483151 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:11:52 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <23037_1512483940_5A26AC64_23037_392_5_1512483939.26596.80.camel@orange.com>
References: <23037_1512483940_5A26AC64_23037_392_5_1512483939.26596.80.camel@orange.com>
X-Mailer: Airmail iOS (331)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:11:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESsytoQcwe-3Jd-gEc6mBe6_F=KfeEMxuR0WY7kh57KZx3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, bess-chairs@ietf.org, thomas.morin@orange.com
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d57cc46b513055f9f1faf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/luVdfkPycw5ZDrC_DaizbXM51_E>
Subject: Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 22:11:54 -0000

On December 5, 2017 at 9:25:39 AM, thomas.morin@orange.com (
thomas.morin@orange.com) 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.