Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

"Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <> Fri, 07 December 2018 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E24E7130EB3 for <>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:57:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.96
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 dylhre14-tLL for <>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:57:31 -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 819D6130EB2 for <>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:57:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=25820; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1544201851; x=1545411451; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=Bv1t41+OSW1+raQC+YQbvmUTyLesfT0eGwM/4YF95tU=; b=SryhIpCBxfxdupqBgGjrIdyq3zeg5V/feRlCHeTzKlckYZLy/28M44Rl IX8El0KL5QC9ob8VlrGkQr6NTvfKQWCFsEE1XwzFR70FW18slOtD+dFrQ 6jSyxF1GckbzNHhzoHgvGA+1lcs1a5J1ggICum6t0/LD2y5oXD3aeFSxN U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,326,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="209233508"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Dec 2018 16:57:30 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wB7GvUvt027850 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:57:30 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:57:29 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:57:29 -0600
From: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment
Thread-Index: AdSK9MoVutPXDdgmS+OMrGu2oHHStwDSGJWA
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 16:57:29 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <17128_1543833795_5C0508C3_17128_38_7_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B778825@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <17128_1543833795_5C0508C3_17128_38_7_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B778825@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_14B89D6C697A4FEDBDAE0FA4146FB63Eciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment
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: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 16:57:34 -0000


But I would be happy to see some changes if WG / Author agree to it.


  1.  Please move abstract to the top. It would be easy for readers.
  2.  It might be good to add a line to describe I-SID in terminology section

3.2<>. Scalability

   (R2a) A PE MUST handle thousands or tens of thousands of Single-homed

   vES's on a single physical port (e.g., single ENNI)

Comment: These section provides number “thousands or ten thousands”. As a standard document, I think we can avoid using some hard code numbers.
Would it be more appropriate to say “A PE MUST handle multiple Single-homed vES’s
on a single physical port (e.g., single ENNI)

   (R2b) A PE MUST handle hundreds of Single-Active vES's on a single

   physical port (e.g., single ENNI)

Comment: Same as above

   (R2c) A PE MAY handle tens or hundreds of All-Active Multi-Homed

   vES's on a single physical port (e.g., single ENNI)

Comment: Same as above


From: BESS <> on behalf of "" <>
Date: Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:43 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

Hello Working Group,

This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment [1]

This poll runs until *the 17th of December*.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors.

There is currently no IPR disclosed.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].

    Thank you,

    Stephane & Matthew




Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.