IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bess] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 08 July 2022 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 CF3AEC15949B; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13AF1HtTJ3E6; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB78EC159497; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4LfdfS4V7xz1nwZg; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1657296912; bh=tR+zW4sdv2d9fwzLKV1RpOZfjkP9Uq1OlHgWI80M6JU=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=F3wDPUmc8fscsq6B1oFGRUZ6SJfl6S6ZQQ60/rUA6yDeu5Zl/LtFEO5djcqW7BsB6 rjkjDi69cEkMrDz6TjS0XQl7yw0RiYZDOwb/i6TRA1rB0r1dUCrqZmVFXipuNfaf9g vG486+X2pMYRrS1vD1t3Bd4nGXO0SkQWeBJ750+c=
X-Quarantine-ID: <Sja3WjYV_QtA>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.23.181] (unknown [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4LfdfQ73t5z1nthM; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------GTZxoJD2srpR0bl0biup10YO"
Message-ID: <816d0ce9-93b3-a6a4-493c-7150a726a0e8@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 12:15:10 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Parag Jain (paragj)" <paragj@cisco.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
References: <165538724257.60857.14871229763796048790@ietfa.amsl.com> <SJ0PR11MB5134409339017D303E4E116BCFB09@SJ0PR11MB5134.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <SJ0PR11MB51345E7A8ACC8F5EE3BF5D91CF829@SJ0PR11MB5134.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR11MB51345E7A8ACC8F5EE3BF5D91CF829@SJ0PR11MB5134.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/xYIME-ve4jTJbCsa4hglKdcZNpE>
Subject: Re: [bess] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 16:15:35 -0000

Thank you for effectively addressing my concerns.

Yours,

Joel

On 7/8/2022 11:11 AM, Parag Jain (paragj) wrote:
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> I have addressed your comments and uploaded a new version of the doc.
>
> Thanks
>
> Parag
>
> *From: *Parag Jain (paragj) <paragj@cisco.com>
> *Date: *Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:26 AM
> *To: *Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org 
> <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, 
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping.all@ietf.org 
> <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping.all@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org 
> <last-call@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07
>
> Hi Joel
>
> Thanks for the directorate review comments. Let me incorporate them 
> and publish new version.
>
> Thanks
>
> Parag
>
> *From: *Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 9:47 AM
> *To: *rtg-dir@ietf.org <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, 
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping.all@ietf.org 
> <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping.all@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org 
> <last-call@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07
>
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready
>
> This is a routing directorate review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07
> provided by Joel Halpern at the request of the routing directorate 
> review team
> leaders as input to the routing area directors.  Please treat as any other
> review comments.
>
> (Apologies for the delay.)
>
> This document is Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
>
> Comments:
> Major: None
>
> Minor:
>     Section 4.1 describes the EVPN MAC Sub-TLV.  And states it is 
> derived from
>     MAC/IP advertisement route.  I note that in RFC 7623 (PBB-EVPN) 
> there are
>     restrictions on several of these fields.  Should this section note 
> at least
>     that in the PBB-EVPN case those restrictions apply (probably with a
>     pointer, not repeating the restrictions)?
>
>      Section 4.4 describes EVPN IP Prefix Sub-TLV.  From the wording I 
> suspect
>      that it applies only to the EVPN case and not to the PBB-EVPN 
> case.  In
>      4.3, the text was explicit about that applicability. Could we be 
> equally
>      clear here?
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email