Re: [bess] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, May 7, 2017, 7:35 PM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Warren,
>
> In the draft you have reviewed EVPN term is use interchangeably with term
> [RFC7432] which in turn is also already listed and defined in the Normative
> References section (2nd from the top).
>


Yes, and I  read RFC7432 when I first reviewed this document - but I only
knew that was the one to read after grepping though RFCs for "EVPN" -- is
there any reason for the authirs *not* to make things easier for your
readers by saying: "
This document describes how EVPN [RFC7432] can be ..."?


> Personally if you assume that the reader of this document is not familiar
> with EVPN I would also recommend to read few other L2 VPN related documents
> as prerequisite before jumping to this one:
>
> - RFC 7209 and all VPN related documents included in its references
>
> - RFC 7432 and all VPN related documents included in its references
>
> - all VPN related documents included in references of
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws
>

That sounds like a fine idea - perhaps the authors should add something
like "Readers of this document are expected to be familiar with RFC7209 and
RFC7432."
Mainly I don't understand why we wouldn't want to make it easier for
someone new to the technology...

W




> - only then the draft in question itself.
>
> Kind regards,
> Robert.
>
>
> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> [ For -11 / -12 ]
>> This document is very heavy on the acronyms, and could do with some
>> expanding of these -- for example, the document starts out with "This
>> document describes how EVPN can be used...". I'm no MPLS VPN person, so
>> much time was spent searching to try figure out what everything meant.
>>
>> I also agree with Spencer's "In multihoming scenarios, both B and P flags
>> MUST NOT be both set. " being hard to parse, and disagree with Acee that
>> is it clear.
>>
>> [ For -13 ]
>> The draft was revised to address Alia's DISCUSS, and also Spencer's
>> "traditional way" and "both B and P flags MUST NOT be both set" comment,
>> but still does not expand EVPN; I also agree with Spencer that it would
>> be helpful to expand P2P on first use.  I reread the document and have
>> some additional comments - note that these are are only comments, but I
>> think that they would make the document more readable...
>>
>> 1: Introduction:
>> "that in EVPN terminology would mean a single pair of Ethernet Segments
>> ES(es)." - I'm confused by the 'ES(es)' - guessing this was an editing
>> failure and 'Ethernet Segments (ES)' was intended? If not,
>>
>> You use both "Ethernet AD" and "Ethernet A-D" - please choose and stick
>> with one.
>>
>> 1.1: Terminology:
>> "EVI: EVPN Instance." --  Ok, but EVPN is still not defined /
>> referenced.
>>
>> 3.1  EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community
>> " A PE that receives an update with both B and P flags set MUST treat
>> the
>>  route as a withdrawal. If the PE receives a route with both B and P
>>  clear, it MUST treat the route as a withdrawal from the sender PE."
>> Do the above 2 sentences say the same thing? It sure sounds like
>> repetition, if not, please explain the difference. If not, removing one
>> would make this less confusing.
>>
>> Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model
>> You use the terms / labels "PSN1", "PSN2" - what are these? "Provider
>> <something> Network"?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BESS mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
>
>