Re: AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn
"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com> Fri, 12 September 2014 22:24 UTC
Return-Path: <sajassi@cisco.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 AEEDF1A00CF for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.153
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.153 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_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 I8rPbhYPncaN for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 807611A00C2 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6476; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1410560647; x=1411770247; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Xk0ap97kQKXPpgAUfbY8ThSNTIL3Tbbgul9Uokn5A64=; b=AFklnJS3+dwpbOqiEU7Hwn4zmwLjy3xDmZjs5KCU0N2FxblSHmaIVZqi BG6IPd+Oggg8NSuCi/COl8TWIz55Wpm+eJh2p9Ju9fU+4N+9Z0+1EnbZC SUvOiYDv906SFLdWhxApqwPLyo4HREJ23sUHzBQK8fWfKGjrZgIyBP17B I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFADZyE1StJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABfgmojgSEJBNBFAYENFniEBAEBBDo/EgEIGB5CJQEBBAENBRSILgG9KgEXigCFTQeETAEEhFuMcoZ0gXaCUZU/g2FsgUiBBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,515,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="354863460"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Sep 2014 22:24:06 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8CMO6vE014671 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:24:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:24:06 -0500
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn
Thread-Index: Ac+ir2WMxkqx3iLaSfGOKuQ7m4RsKQBst7wACplOTgA=
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:24:05 +0000
Message-ID: <D038C01D.EC0E3%sajassi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFF197D8.E303A%sajassi@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.157]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <E3C79F38E4703E4C9AC3E3ED779B5CCC@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/dX24MJQG30n7zMYFSey5UwvTfCo
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:24:11 -0000
Hi Adrian, I just posted an updated evpn draft to address all your comments per resolutions below. Cheers, Ali On 7/21/14, 12:55 AM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com> wrote: >Adrian, > >Thanks very much for your review. I will incorporate your comments into >the next rev. For more details, please refer inline ... > >Regards, >Ali > >On 7/18/14 3:56 PM, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > >>Goodness, but there's a long and complicated document. But I think >>you have made it as clear and concise as it could possibly have been. >>Good job! >> >>I have done my AD review and found no substantive issues. I do, >>however, have a little pile of nits. Actually, quite a large heap. >>Nothing to worry about, but if you could clean them up i think it >>would improve the document still further. >> >>The only topics that need real attention are those related to IANA. >> >>Let me know how you get on, and please object if my comments are wrong. >> >>Thanks, >>Adrian >> >>=== >> >>It would be best to move the Introduction to be the first section in >>the document. >> >>--- >> >>Section 5 >> >> Ethernet segments have an >> identifier, called the "Ethernet Segment Identifier" (ESI) which is >> encoded as a ten octets integer. >> >>It would help if you said "...in line format with the most significant >>octet sent first." > >Done. > >> >>--- >> >>Section 5 >> >> In general, an Ethernet segment MUST have a non-reserved ESI that is >> unique network wide >> >>"In general" is not really consistent with "MUST" > >Will change "MUST" to "SHOULD" > >> >>--- >> >>Do you want an IANA registry to track the values of the Type field of >>the ESI? > >We don't anticipate any other ESI type besides the ones mentioned here. > >> >> >>--- >> >>There is some mixing of "octet" and "byte" in the document. This creates >>the impression that you mean something different by the two words. > >Will make it consistent. > >> >>--- >> >>Could you expand DF on first use. You have it in 8.3. > >Will do. > >> >>--- >> >>Section 6 >> >>You use "Ethernet Tag ID", "Ethernet Tag", and "Ethernet Tag Identifier" >>interchangeably. It would be helpful to use just one term and to check >>usage in the rest of the document. > >Will do. > >> >>--- >> >>Section 6.1 >> >> In such >> scenarios, the Ethernet frames transported over MPLS/IP network >> SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VID and a VID translation >> MUST be supported in the data path and MUST be performed on the >> disposition PE. >> >>I think you should add under what circumstances the frames MAY be re- >>tagged with a different VID (or s/SHOULD/MUST). You don't need a >>detailed explanation, but a guide to the implementer/operator. > >The sentence before this says: >"If the VLAN is represented > by different VIDs on different PEs, then each PE needs to perform VID > translation for frames destined to its attached CEs." > >I thought this description is clear enough but I will try to make it more >clear. > >> >>--- >> >>Do you want IANA to create a registry and track the Route Types defined >>for the EVPN NLRI in Section 7? > >We'll look into it. > >> >>--- >> >>Section 7.1 and onwards... >> >>I know "RD" is a term of art in the context of BGP, but could you >>please expand RD it on first use rather than leaving that to 8.2.1. > >Sure, we'll do. > >> >>(All the forward references to later sections are good, thanks.) >> >>--- >> >>A small inconsistency between sections 7 and 8. In the figures in >>Section 7 you have "MPLS Label" and "MPLS Label1" etc. In the text >>in Section 8 you have "MPLS label" etc. When you refer to the fields >>you need to match the case. When you refer to the concept of an MPLS >>label, you can (of course) use normal case. > >Agreed. > >> >>--- >> >>Are you sure that the ESI Label extended community and subtypes don't >>need IANA intervention here? > >We have registered these values with IANA. We will reflect that in IANA >section. > >> >>--- >> >>It would be nice if 7.5 included a hint as to what an "ESI label" is. > >Agreed. > >> >>--- >> >>In 7.10 >> >> If a PE uses RT-Constrain, the PE SHOULD advertise all such RTs using >> RT Constraints. >> >>Is this a general restatement of RFC 4684 (if so add "As described in >>[RFC4684]...") or new guidance for implementers of this spec (if so, >>what is the reason for SHOULD? is there a MAY to counter it?) > >I'll add RFC4684 reference. > >> >>--- >> >>8.1.1 >> >> The Ethernet Segment Identifier MUST be set to the ten octet ESI >> identifier described in section 5. >> >>Would that be the ESII? :-) > >Nice catch :-) > >> >>--- >> >>8.2.1 has "MANDATORY" I guess you are inventing a 2119 term to counter- >>point "OPTIONAL". Please use "REQUIRED." > >Agreed. > >> >>--- >> >>In Section 13.1 >> >> In certain >> environments the source MAC address MAY be used to authenticate the >> CE and determine that traffic from the host can be allowed into the >> network. >> >>Want to hint which environments they would be. Possibly more important, >>want to say in which environments this would be a damn fool idea? > >We'll do :-) > >> >>--- >> >>14.1.2 >> >> The MPLS label stack to send the packets to PE1 is the MPLS LSP stack >> to get to PE1 and the EVPN label advertised by PE1 for CE1's MAC. >> >>and >> >> The MPLS label stack to send packets to PE2 is the MPLS LSP stack to >> get to PE2 and the MPLS label in the Ethernet A-D route advertised by >> PE2 for <ES1, VLAN1>, if PE2 has not advertised MAC1 in BGP. >> >>It *should* be perfectly obvious to the implementer, but perhaps you >>should say what order the labels appear on the stack since "and" is non- >>specific. > >OK. > >> >>--- >> >>Section 18 >> >>I wish you would add a reference to 4385 and use that control word with >>the various fields set to zero. This would keep us from increasing the >>number of different control word definitions in the wild. I think that >>the impact on your spec would be zero. > >We'll do. > >> >>--- >> >>Section 21 should be renamed "Contributors" > >We'll do. > >> >>--- >> >>I think RFC 2119 is a normative reference. > >OK. > >> >
- AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Adrian Farrel
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Ali Sajassi (sajassi)