Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-evpn-applicability-04

Reese, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Lars

> On 6. Jul 2022, at 20:17, Reese Enghardt via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Reese Enghardt
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-nvo3-evpn-applicability-04
> Reviewer: Reese Enghardt
> Review Date: 2022-07-06
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-07-11
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: The document is well-written, though dense, and it does a good job of
> breaking down a complex topic. I only found a few nits to make the document
> more accessible.
> 
> Major issues: None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Abstract:
> Please expand NVO3 networks on first use.
> Please consider adding a sentence to already state in the abstract/introduction
> that this document does not introduce any new procedures or signaling in EVPN.
> 
> If EVPN gets updated in future RFCs, does this document apply to these updates?
> Not sure if it's worth saying anything about this, but I started wondering
> about this question when seeing the table of EVPN route types in Section 4.1.
> 
> Section 2:
> Please expand CLOS on first use.
> Please add a definition for Tenant System, in addition to expanding the acronym.
> For the BT definition, not having read RFC7432, I got slightly confused
> initially, as "Bridge Table" sounded to me like it's a sort-of lookup table on
> a single NVE, but if it's the instantiation of a BD, it would potentially span
> multiple NVEs. Having read the doc, it seems like a BT spans multiple NVEs and
> potentially is the same on all NVEs in the same BD. If this is true, please
> consider adding a clarifying sentence to the BT definition.
> 
> Section 4.2:
> Figure 1 uses the terms "single-active" and "all-active", but the document only
> defines/explains them in Section 4.7.5 - Is this intentional? Even though
> Figure 1 uses "single-active" and "all-active", I am not seeing these terms
> used in any example later on when the terms are explained. Please consider
> either elaborating on how the terms relate to the Figure 1 example or removing
> these terms from Figure 1.
> 
> Section 4.2.2:
> Please consider expanding PMSI on first use.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Section 4:
> "The intend is" -> "The intent is"
> 
> 
> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call