Hi Martin, We¹ll also add idr-tunnel-encaps a Informative reference. With respect to Tunnel Encap Extended Community (which is the only part of idr-tunnel-encap used by evpn-overlay draft), idr-tunel-encap draft itself references RFC 5512.
During the course of WG LC and RFC editorship of evpn-overlay draft, if we see that idr-tunnel-encap is progressing fast, then we can drop the reference to RFC 5512 and make the reference to idr-tunnel-encap Normative. Otherwise, we¹ll keep both references with RFC 5512 as Normative and idr-tunnel-encap as Informative. Regards, Ali On 6/7/16, 1:08 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" <bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of martin.vigour...@nokia.com> wrote: >Hi, > >We are fine with keeping 5512 as the Normative reference for now. >We would think it wise if the editors can add an Informative reference >to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps (with some text indicating that both >specs provide the required support for the procedures). >The ideal situation would be that tunnel-encaps progresses fast enough >so that in the last stages before publishing evpn-overlay we can be in a >situation to make tunnel-encaps the Normative reference. RFC 4897 would >facilitate that by the way. > >If the WG has specific opinions on that matter, they are welcome. > >We take good note of the shepherd suggestion. We'll confirm who will >shepherd the document after WG LC (we'll also call for volunteers during >WG Last Call). > >Reviews are highly welcome anyway, in particular from people >close to the topic or implementations, and ideally from more than one >person, the best time being now or at least before the WG LC ends. > >We'll start the WG LC in a couple of days. > >Martin & Thomas > > >Le 24/05/2016 15:39, John E Drake a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> Ali and I decided to keep the normative reference to RFC 5512 rather >> than changing it to Eric¹s tunnel encapsulation draft because the >> normative reference pre-dates Eric¹s draft and because our draft does >> not use any of the new capabilities introduced in Eric¹s draft. >> >> Ali and I would also like to request that Jorge be the document shepherd >> for this draft. >> >> Yours Irrespectively, >> >> John >> >> *From:*Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:05 AM >> *To:* John E Drake; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com; IDR; BESS; >> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-over...@tools.ietf.org; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - >> US); draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-en...@tools.ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. >> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps >> >> Folks, >> >> I have updated and published rev03 of even-overlay draft. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay/ >> >> The main changes are: >> >> 1. section 10.2 DCI using ASBR >> 2. The setting of Ethernet tag and VNI fields there were some >> inconsistencies in different sections. Section 5.1.3 captures the >> setting of these fields for different type of services in pretty >> good details. All other sections were cleaned up and now refer to >> section 5.1.3. >> >> Thomas, >> >> The draft is ready for its long-overdue WG LC considering how long its >> has been around and its multi-vendor implementation status. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ali >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BESS mailing list >> BESS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >> > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
