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

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 06 December 2017 15:32 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 A1881126DD9; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 07:32:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 8FAhtvXN7Jsf; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 07:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22e.google.com (mail-ot0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22e]) (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 B8E91126D45; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 07:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id o23so3679389otd.1; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 07:32:27 -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=m6vyKt/wqB8IxDtJI3JTCSYFzlD/cPr5JnYW4YdfZk8=; b=U3KyY3q1yLz7dA7eW//Uln2fivcSF1PJjbjRXj6QtmVNnSaFDYmYDuPKcNQol5EV4v mmMJdo8IPryGV5FNgQhzqgXb9ULk8bPbIzMpk2rCcWLhxWtckrWMZ5AfGS7OKCJcPxCl Q9zz+kJNbY0poAhUCSHBoTELwtayVLzuSoD16Ffxzhsukmvvr5KZh+21UBY5FqbDmrsP VllZj8tmTdpoCRz3ODAS2mv7vd+Xu07QExuZGenStXDrybi49mdA30DNMxIeyjWMbQ4U 71h7ssLjp5aHKEdYKFZA/LAFJXj1zs4ehBDypvo1uPa/nfOWxVLfrl99t0tyvyrUG9Tb qJcA==
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=m6vyKt/wqB8IxDtJI3JTCSYFzlD/cPr5JnYW4YdfZk8=; b=HbALu7ju7kMYf8uECS4rU1mR73PQQwtQG9moCp+lqDD7DiK55uPx5yTMKKBafT20be wQyfvxoGkdGb7lnPz1Kn0NeGt12AF+rTSTbKBrPPVJjvi5JGI6IdeK/CIJrSi2MXyTcH dd3zQJthVlZdQ26wbkL2TARDPQVoJNL1GkR1xHMr4GA1capAYGCDcgEOQ8Ep/hECe2WI 177IktGPvZQu0np7kpIO9LUrl3YPW/YHg36jfauQ2Ndx+Tc1rNn0NriNLfBLp+h1Qhy6 VqpLmLmu1rPPsjNd4IVqZ8KU0EQtzPA/8/lYhzcxp5yepYDbcFbMnBrksUTUnls+u0BQ D5IQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJuNnJwhZ7+aKcDJIV4TMvoSl4MQiP9yvHOxitK1l6BySSIB9nW NTmrBMdOBgdnykZ33hC/UKDR96H44yqxU3Er9c0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbeWhpWAz+mdwgLlnE6O/oYsdEf5CBLrQky4l1p+UaI9Q/wTAaHvMPguogEhiLYdLLCwHVhERYC6i2w2rJvgLk=
X-Received: by 10.157.58.66 with SMTP id j60mr13246973otc.289.1512574346995; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 07:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 07:32:26 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR05MB3540ADA70267A0858915E891C73C0@BN6PR05MB3540.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMMESsw2x53Av-_zi5nL5czKCXYmi_mk0i6qyYYZDYHE8oo_tA@mail.gmail.com> <BN6PR05MB3540ADA70267A0858915E891C73C0@BN6PR05MB3540.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Airmail (461)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 07:32:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESszd05194hZwcH+Z21-G4=wq-nniTMi9qWsUWxq7HsYX7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11492f88a62dc1055fada8d5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/qPZ97jJ2NUIOJ6yEp7D78DLJfA0>
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: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 15:32:29 -0000

On December 4, 2017 at 5:16:49 PM, John E Drake (jdrake@juniper.net) wrote:

(1) Coordination with nv03



For the Chairs:  Except for some clarification comments [1] related to the
current version, I see no other traffic in the nvo3 list related to this
document.  Was there some other coordination that I’m missing?   I am not
questioning having this document in bess (that’s perfectly fine); I’m just
raising the needed coordination with other WGs, from the Charter: "The
working group will also coordinate with...NVO3 working group
for coordination of protocols to support data center VPNs.”



*[JD]  This draft had been around for nearly five years and the
coordination happened a long time ago.  Because NVO3 was not chartered to
work on a control plane, the coordination was mainly to ensure that this
draft met the requirements specified by that group.*




The coordination I’m talking about is not the one related to the decision
of where the work should be done.  The question is to raise the point that
if bess (in the case) is doing work related nvo3, then ideally the document
wold have been flagged to nvo3 when it went into WGLC to allow them to
review and comment.

In this case, I don’t think this document includes anything that would be
contentious in nvo3 — so I’m happy to explicitly let the WG know when we
start the IETF LC.

Alvaro.