[bess] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The shepherd write-up says:
"Two IPR discussions from Juniper & Cisco respectively:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws
Haven't seen WG discussion on that."
Can we confirm that the wg is aware of the IPRs before publication?

Other minor comments:

1) Agree with Warren that all the acronyms make it hard to read. Please
check that you've spelled out all acronyms at the first occurrence in the
intro accordingly, including EVPN.

2) section 3.1: Is the B flag even needed? Doesn't P=0 indicate that this
is the Backup PE?

3) I would maybe move section 5 right after the intro because it provides
some background on the benefits of this extension.

4) Are you sure there are no additional security consideration based on
the information provided in this extension? E.g. an attacker indicates
being the primary PE and thereby causes a conflict, or problems based on
the indication of a small MTU by an attacker? Not sure if there is any
risk or if that is covered somewhere else...?