[Bier] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-bier-evpn-12: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 30 November 2023 10:27 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bier-evpn@ietf.org, bier-chairs@ietf.org, bier@ietf.org, mankamis@cisco.com, mankamis@cisco.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-ID: <170134006243.33771.1481832511315317355@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 02:27:42 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/kgEt9ryb4MSyEMkq_GDcz7SQ4YM>
Subject: [Bier] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-bier-evpn-12: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bier-evpn-12: 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://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-evpn/

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

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-bier-evpn-12

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Section 2, paragraph 4
```
* "Tunnel Type". The same codepoint 0x0B that IANA has assigned for
BIER for MVPN [RFC8556] is used for EVPN as well.
```
Should this document update RFC8556? It reuses the 0x0B codepoint, but
the definition of "MPLS label" (and "Flags"?) seems to be
broader/different than that in RFC8556?

### Section 2, paragraph 3
```
* "Tunnel Identifier". This field contains three subfields for
BIER. The text below is exactly as in [RFC8556].
```
It would be better to normatively cite the relevant section in RFC8556
rather than to replicate its text here. (If that part of RFC8556 is
ever updated by another RFC, the copy here will be inconsistent.)

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 4.1.1, paragraph 2
```
- packet after the ethernet header, the IMET route originated for
- ^
+ packet after the Ethernet header, the IMET route originated for
+ ^
```

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Bier] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-b… Lars Eggert via Datatracker
Re: [Bier] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang