[L2sm] Ignas Bagdonas' Yes on draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-09: (with COMMENT)

Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com> Tue, 03 April 2018 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ibagdona@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: l2sm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B7812D7E5; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 10:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model@ietf.org, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, l2sm-chairs@ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk, l2sm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.77.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152277729841.22763.15089428383980612145.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:41:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2sm/1Ji8nVK8EHlrbq-sF8tb9KZa6_Y>
Subject: [L2sm] Ignas Bagdonas' Yes on draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: l2sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "The Layer Two Virtual Private Network Service Model \(L2SM\)" <l2sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l2sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:41:39 -0000

Ignas Bagdonas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-09: Yes

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Authors, thank you for the detailed and thorough service model, especially for
sections 6 and 7, it shows a good example to follow for model development.

A few comments and nits:

References to NMDA (8342) and tree diagrams (8340).

s2: VPWS definition seems to have a missing word - established as a logical
[connection?] through a PSN.

s2: B-U-M vs BUM abbreviation, BUM seems to be more widely used in VPLS and
EVPN references.

s3.1: IPLS reference RFC 7436.

s/VxLAN/VXLAN throughout the document.

s5.2.1: s/leave/leaf.

s5.2.1: references to E-Line and E-LAN would be good to have, MEF 6.

s5.2.2.4: MAC-VRF, s/arerequired/are required

s5.2.2.4: H&S disjoint topology would require more than two RTs in total, one
per hub and at least one for sites.

s5.2.5: first paragraph: three frame types are supported - could you clarify?
Did you mean three frame types need to be supported?

s5.3: Terminology - exterior interfaces vs ACs.

s5.3: last paragraph: the site may support single homed or multi-homed
[access?] - seems to be a word missing.

s5. s/802.1AH/802.1ah, a reference would be good.

s5. Micro-BFD reference RFC7130.

s5. cfp-802.1-ag vs cfm-8021-ag

s5.6.2: s/ALPHA-2/ISO 3166.

s5.10.1: s/dot1p/802.1p (or 802.1D).

s5.10.3: CE to CE frame modification - why SHOULD NOT form is used? What would
happen if it  gets modified - as there is a common practice of not trusting
customer CoS marking.


s5.16.1, 5.16.2, 5.16.3: the use of EBGP, MP-BGP terms - it is just BGP, does
it need to be emphasized?

s6: s/operatorpolicy/operator policy

s6: s/itscontrol/its control

s6: NETCONF/YANG ecosystem - maybe just YANG based ecosystem?

s7: s/Netconf/NETCONF