[bess] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-11: Discuss

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-11

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below two blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Stéphane Litkowski for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus ***but it lacks*** the justification of the intended
status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

## Shepherd write-up

The shepherd write-up includes `Martin Vigoureux is the responsible AD`.

The shepherd write-up includes `There is one IPR`, while data tracker has 2 IPR
declarations. At least, the auto-generated IETF Last Call correctly listed the
two IPR declarations.

The above parts are obviously outdated and MUST be updated.

This is not really a DISCUSS criteria, so I will change my ballot after the
IESG formal telechat or after an update of the shepherd write-up (the earlier).

## Wrong reference to RFC5531

As indicated by idnits, there is a reference to RFC 5531 (it should probably be
RFC 5331)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# COMMENTS

## Abstract

Should the abstract qualify the VPN with layer-3 (for MVPN) and layer-2 (for
EVPN) ?

## Section 1

Should "SR" also be expanded ? Should RFC 8660 be a reference ?

## Section 2

`to transmit multicast traffic or BUM traffic` is somehow redundant as BUM
includes multicast.

## Section 2.1

`At the present time` what about "In 2023, " ?

## Section 3.1

Please expand "EC" at first use (even if it can be guessed on the previous
sentence).

Why this section use `to be defined by IANA`, while section 5 lists the
IANA-assigned values ?

## Section 3.2

This I-D uses 'outside the scope of this document' twice. I am curious: is
there any work in BESS WG for this ?

# NITS

## Section 1

s/Terminologies/Terminology/

s/Broadcast, Unknown *U*nicast, or Multicast (traffic)/Broadcast, Unknown
*u*nicast, or Multicast (packet)/

s/sub set/subset/