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

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <> Tue, 22 January 2019 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF55130E9C; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 23:30:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.642
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, 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 2mGNz0X8bQQW; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 23:30:56 -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 C6129130E7D; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 23:30:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2960; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1548142256; x=1549351856; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=WXOsyxRo7OOlwrEeRXcGRq3EUR5wrM0ipkEXiNb6KZE=; b=llJduLm4moPF3bPbtI1uWE/muctrlCsGoPfKhtJmH3DMg7dkUhbL9pQc b/lg647wUe+6Dk4YI+MHLFf6F/WToU8exiTK+fqySCFLLHQjpj9muc+sm GQS7oFJDsNjLMlOIQlsKHYUcnEvtMEt0j3DxMmwXYafI4jRY6zeoJu4QD U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,505,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="229383940"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jan 2019 07:30:54 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0M7UrGk017998 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Jan 2019 07:30:54 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 02:30:52 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 02:30:52 -0500
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>, The IESG <>
CC: "" <>, Matthew Bocci <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUpq6omo6pX5Wgj06gWZ6au7aoGKW6ySWA
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 07:30:52 +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] Alvaro Retana'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 07:30:58 -0000


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

On 1/7/19, 9:30 AM, "Alvaro Retana" <> wrote:

    Alvaro Retana 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:
    It would be very nice to have references to (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS in the
    introduction.  I think that all of these references should be Normative because
    they are "documents that must be read to understand or implement the
    technology".  It looks like the references are made later in the text...but a
    couple are listed as only Informative.

AS> All the EVPN and VPLS RFCs are listed in the normative section. RFC7041 which is about PBB-VPLS was in informative section which is now move to normative.
    I don't think that the use of rfc2119 language in §2 (Requirements) is
    appropriate because (1) there isn't any Normative action from the requirements,
    and (2) these are resolved later in this document.

AS> change them to lower case.
    I agree with others (Genart, Opsdir) in that this document reads more like a
    BCP or even an Informational document.

AS> I added a sentence to the abstract and introduction to explain why this drat is intended to be "standard".
    [nit] s/(PBB-VPLS) solutions (PBB-)VPLS./(PBB-VPLS) solutions.

AS> done.