IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Some comments on draft-boutros-l2vpn-evpn-vpws-04

"Bitar, Nabil N" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BCA61A0AC9 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PG7fvXBULaSN for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fldsmtpe01.verizon.com (fldsmtpe01.verizon.com [140.108.26.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B79381A036B for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=verizon.com; i=nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com; q=dns/txt; s=corp; t=1406122777; x=1437658777; h=from:to:date:subject:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=a2YanySue84Y4MSfMkplHAshfPM7aIsnNOPpQ7FOhoU=; b=jXTCcjQL78jtmGIvvxFDDPYZRA/yvcXdQX7n69zJyOcfmAFubhK4HYPL HaFbXc8/7x5755dy1Oe6Qav/a+KdruTN8doCsYfL5Yn7djDTHZXCSO+kA VweGeqvY/++ZWuGwjJeFJX8RrJgV8fuYeVtdR7NW3g8vtPzql7EoO/zmk 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false
Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi03.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.145]) by fldsmtpe01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2014 13:39:35 +0000
From: "Bitar, Nabil N" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,717,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="779518228"
Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb02.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.85]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2014 13:39:35 +0000
Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.45]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.85]) with mapi; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:39:35 -0400
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>, "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:38:30 -0400
Subject: RE: Some comments on draft-boutros-l2vpn-evpn-vpws-04
Thread-Topic: Some comments on draft-boutros-l2vpn-evpn-vpws-04
Thread-Index: Ac+meBv0QYa2p+2dTfOpbmsZN7O7gAAA0gKF
Message-ID: <EE3DB9B68D417942A9B1863918E159FA12406B8FD1@FLDP1LUMXC7V63.us.one.verizon.com>
References: <CAA=duU0DFumixKCXk5eYHVFWY1+vnaTTSVioKMj=x21Z5-pMhw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0DFumixKCXk5eYHVFWY1+vnaTTSVioKMj=x21Z5-pMhw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/WsCZt9lOh49Dj00_5GBUnPAGy1I
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:39:40 -0000

Thanks Andy. Noted. 

Thanks,
Nabil
________________________________________
From: L2vpn [l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis [agmalis@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:14 AM
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Some comments on draft-boutros-l2vpn-evpn-vpws-04

This morning I had a chat with Sami about the draft, to follow up on my comments in the l2vpn meeting. One thing we discussed is the commonality between this draft and RFC 6624. That commonality makes it easier for me to support this draft, but I would suggest that a reference to that RFC be added to the draft. In addition, that RFC is Informational, and this draft should be as well, since it's just discussing a particular application for the Standards Track EVPN draft.

Talking about RFC 6624, that RFC has the following statement:

"...it is recommended that devices implementing the solution described in this document also implement the approach in [RFC4447] and [RFC6074]."

This draft should also have a similar statement.

Thanks,
Andy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email