Re: [nvo3] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-nvo3-evpn-applicability-05: (with COMMENT)

["Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the review. Revision 06 addresses your comments.
Please see in-line.

Thank you!
Jorge

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:09 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-nvo3-evpn-applicability-05: (with COMMENT)

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.



Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nvo3-evpn-applicability-05: 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-nvo3-evpn-applicability/



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

Hi,

Thanks for this document.  I only have minor, editorial type comments.

Minor level comments:

(1) p 6, sec 3.  Why is EVPN Needed in NVO3 Networks?

   Why is a control-plane protocol along with NVO3 tunnels required?
   There are three main reasons:

Given that you give an example of why a control-plane protocol isn't required
for the first two, would it be fairer to write 'helpful' or 'useful' rather
than 'required'?
[jorge] fair point. Changed it to ‘helpful’.


(2) p 23, sec 6.  Conventions Used in this Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

It is really unusual to have this boilerplate text need the end of the
document, I don't recall seeing it done in other RFCs.  It would probably be
better before the current section 2, or as part of the current section 2.
[jorge] Thanks. We removed the text altogether, since there were comments about it and we are no using normative language here.


Nit level comments:

(3) p 6, sec 3.  Why is EVPN Needed in NVO3 Networks?

   On this architecture and as discussed by [RFC7364], multi-tenant
   intra-subnet and inter-subnet connectivity services are provided by
   NVO3 tunnels, being VXLAN [RFC7348] or GENEVE [RFC8926] two examples
   of such tunnels.

The latter part of the sentence (, being ...) doesn't scan well for me.
[jorge] fixed


(4) p 7, sec 3.  Why is EVPN Needed in NVO3 Networks?

   *  "Flood and learn" solves the issues of auto-discovery and learning
      of the MAC to VNI/tunnel IP mapping on the NVEs for a given
      Broadcast Domain.  However, it does not provide a solution for
      advanced features and it does not scale well (mostly due to the
      need for constant flooding and the underlay PIM states that are
      needed to maintain).

I suggest "must be maintained" rather than "needed to maintain".
[jorge] changed, thanks.


Regards,
Rob