Re: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <> Tue, 22 January 2019 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3BE128BCC; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:59:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.053
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.053 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NUAmN9jxzl4q; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:59:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D970124BAA; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:59:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2870; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1548147579; x=1549357179; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=T3QxxinXVht5vDM167+D7dZAaLukaKv/CZwGmohCVIA=; b=LFxPfmX99hKGzuj81Jag/IAxixtx/s9shaVh3zOuFZ9c6McjcI+8uYt4 XAhNHrpT6Diaw8y9nRjti4dHgRscvMiJ2sRBDuJ6JzEm+Ser1u2Te851k QbTfmqetxl+40iBLmtXee1GlGXw+nst/253DpbKH2VLoeEGMQET3B9J7Q E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,505,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="497684549"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jan 2019 08:59:38 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0M8xbNJ019461 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:59:38 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 03:59:37 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 03:59:37 -0500
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <>
To: Ben Campbell <>, The IESG <>
CC: "" <>, Matthew Bocci <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUqGJDS5Uwfz19pUuLGn33vE32BqW63okA
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:59:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:59:42 -0000

Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below marked with "AS>".

On 1/9/19, 1:28 PM, "Ben Campbell" <> wrote:

    Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: 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
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    Thanks for the work on this.
    I support Alissa's discuss.
    - The 2119/8174 keywords in this section are not used according to the RFC
    2119/RFC 8174 definitions. The RFCs talk about requirements on implementations
    to achieve interoperability. This speaks of requirements for the standards
    process. If the working group prefers to keep the use of keywords in this
    section, please add some additional text to the 2119/8174 boilerplate to
    explain the usage. (My other comments on the section assume that the normative
    keywords will remain.)
    - Req 2:  "The solution MUST require no changes..."
    I suggest "MUST NOT require changes"

AS> Changed it to: "must not require any changes to ..."
    - Req 5: This doesn't seem to state a solution requirement; rather, it
    describes an action that VPN instances may take. Is the solution requirement to
    allow this behavior?
AS>   moved the 2nd part of the paragraph to the solution description under sections 3.2 and 4.2.