Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-13: (with COMMENT)

["Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your additional comments.
Please see zzh> below.


Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 4:54 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-13: (with COMMENT)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FEgMbJglM32kNpUq8oHsJACNotxG8OsVTbawC8CSmY6LxXGvbXL5dg2IGipM1_A9Gt7HJwasAU7uYvU$
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FEgMbJglM32kNpUq8oHsJACNotxG8OsVTbawC8CSmY6LxXGvbXL5dg2IGipM1_A9Gt7HJwasNmJJFr4$



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

Thanks to Zhaohui Zhang and Stéphane Litkowski for addressing my previous DISCUSS points (even if they were 'discuss discuss', i.e., just to have a discussion). I have now cleared my previous DISCUSS ballot.

# COMMENTS

## Abstract

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

Zzh> In this document, VPN refers to IP VPN. L2 VPN is specifically EVPN.
Zzh> I can change VPN to IP VPN in the abstract, and then in the first section clarify that VPN specifically refers to IP VPN.
Zzh> Is that ok?

## Section 1

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

Zzh> Changed and added.

## Section 2

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

Zzh> Changed to "to transmit VPN multicast  traffic or EVPN BUM traffic".

## Section 2.1

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

Zzh> Changed to "So far, ".

## Section 3.1

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

Zzh> Fixed.

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

Zzh> Fixed.

## 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 ?

Zzh> No at this time 😊
Zzh> Coordinated label assignment is like IP address assignment.
Zzh> Ensuring all PEs supporting the procedures is like an operator making sure that all its PEs are running a certain software release.

# NITS

zzh> All fixed. To be posted.
Zzh> Thanks!
Zzh> Jeffrey

## Section 1

s/Terminologies/Terminology/

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

s/sub set/subset/