Re: [bess] [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps

Hi Martin,

We¹ll also add idr-tunnel-encaps a Informative reference. With respect to
Tunnel Encap Extended Community (which is the only part of
idr-tunnel-encap used by evpn-overlay draft), idr-tunel-encap draft itself
references RFC 5512.

During the course of WG LC and RFC editorship of evpn-overlay draft, if we
see that idr-tunnel-encap is progressing fast, then we can drop the
reference to RFC 5512 and make the reference to idr-tunnel-encap
Normative. Otherwise, we¹ll keep both references with RFC 5512 as
Normative and idr-tunnel-encap as Informative.

Regards,
Ali

On 6/7/16, 1:08 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"
<bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>We are fine with keeping 5512 as the Normative reference for now.
>We would think it wise if the editors can add an Informative reference
>to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps (with some text indicating that both
>specs provide the required support for the procedures).
>The ideal situation would be that tunnel-encaps progresses fast enough
>so that in the last stages before publishing evpn-overlay we can be in a
>situation to make tunnel-encaps the Normative reference. RFC 4897 would
>facilitate that by the way.
>
>If the WG has specific opinions on that matter, they are welcome.
>
>We take good note of the shepherd suggestion. We'll confirm who will
>shepherd the document after WG LC (we'll also call for volunteers during
>WG Last Call).
>
>Reviews are highly welcome anyway, in particular from people
>close to the topic or implementations, and ideally from more than one
>person, the best time being now or at least before the WG LC ends.
>
>We'll start the WG LC in a couple of days.
>
>Martin & Thomas
>
>
>Le 24/05/2016 15:39, John E Drake a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ali and I decided to keep the normative reference to RFC 5512 rather
>> than changing it to Eric¹s tunnel encapsulation draft because the
>> normative reference pre-dates Eric¹s draft and because our draft does
>> not use any of the new capabilities introduced in Eric¹s draft.
>>
>> Ali and I would also like to request that Jorge be the document shepherd
>> for this draft.
>>
>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>
>> John
>>
>> *From:*Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:05 AM
>> *To:* John E Drake; EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com; IDR; BESS;
>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
>> US); draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap@tools.ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs.
>> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I have updated and published rev03 of even-overlay draft.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay/
>>
>> The main changes are:
>>
>>  1. section 10.2  DCI using ASBR
>>  2. The setting of Ethernet tag and VNI fields  there were some
>>     inconsistencies in different sections. Section 5.1.3 captures the
>>     setting of these fields for different type of services in pretty
>>     good details. All other sections were cleaned up and now refer to
>>     section 5.1.3.
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> The draft is ready for its long-overdue WG LC considering how long its
>> has been around and its multi-vendor implementation status.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ali
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess