Sami, Please see zzh3> below. I’ve trimmed some text.
From: Sami Boutros [mailto:sbout...@vmware.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 4:23 PM To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net> Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bess] FW: WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-03 Hi Jeffrey, Few comments inline next to Sami2: Zzh2> Because RFC7432 is not clear about “remain tagged” (for example, see my above questions), it would be good to spell out the details, not just “at least one VID should be present”? Sami2: Can you please suggest some text? Not sure what extra details needed? Zzh3> Let me do more digging to confirm my understanding and see if I could come up with some text. Sami2: We can suggest to the authors of the idr BW draft adding the shaping aspect. Zzh3> The use case in draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth seems to be unrelated to shaping at all, so it may be better to define it in this document to reduce the dependency? Zzh2> RFC7432 only says it’s withdrawn when a tag is “decommissioned”; if the intention is to withdraw when the AC goes down, it should be explicitly spelled out (it’s not in RFC 7432 but should be added to this draft if that’s the right behavior). However, isn’t it better to keep those routes around so that they don’t need to be re-advertised when the link comes back up? Sami2: Sure, I will not need to add any text then, since we will not be changing any behavior, no? Zzh3> Given the following two facts: - I had to do a search to be sure that RFC 7432 did not require the withdraw when the ES goes down - You for a moment thought that RFC 7432 required that It would be better to explicitly call it out in this document. But this is just a suggestion and it does not block the progress. Thanks! Jeffrey
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
