Hi Patrice, Thanks for explaining.
So I think you agree with the goal behind the draft, and the fact that has to be specified somewhere since you suggest rfc7432bis. What you are arguing is whether it has to be in an already published document, or a yet-to-be-published document. Sure, that should be decided by WG rough consensus and chairs. Some other points to your comments: * It is informational because it does not change any control plane element in RFC7432. * It explains the whole mac duplication process for the benefit of the reader * The use of Normative language can be certainly discussed * Loops are important and we think EVPN specs are not complete without addressing them. They can be resolved in different ways. This is an approach that tries to have a uniform behavior across implementations. That’s why we thought a draft was needed, and in particular, the Service Provider that co-authors the draft thought that way. Thanks. Jorge From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbris...@cisco.com> Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 3:43 AM To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com> Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" <draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org>, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect Hi Jorge, As I mentioned, the draft is actually pretty thin as stated in section 4.2: This document enhances the EVPN MAC Duplication Mechanism by extending it with an optional Loop-protection action that is applied on the duplicate-MAC addresses. The document describes at glance the problem. I agree that the problem is real and must be fixed. However, the extension is simply an action on the MAC duplication mechanism to install a blackhole MAC as an option. I’m not sure why there is a need for a draft. The action can be vendor specific. The fact that the draft is informal makes more sense. However, there is a requirement section with *MUST* keywords…. I’m confuse about this…since it is informal. IMO, I would rather add a text to RFC7432bis to suggest what can be done. That will highlight the importance of such problem. Having too many draft dilute the strength of our work. Regards, Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer Cisco Systems Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these forms: Segment Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22> http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 08:37 To: Patrice Brissette <pbris...@cisco.com>, Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com> Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" <draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org>, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect Hi Patrice, I understand that you may not support the draft. However, it would help if you clarify the reason why: - Is it because you don’t think loops should be protected in the way the draft describes? If so please elaborate. - Or is it that you do support the idea in the draft, but think that it does not deserves its own document - Or maybe none of them? :-) I think it is important to clarify that on the list. Thank you. Jorge From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbris...@cisco.com> Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:25 PM To: Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com> Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" <draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org>, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent-To: <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, <senthil.sathap...@nokia.com>, <kiran.naga...@nokia.com>, <julio.buenohernan...@telefonica.com>, <josemanuel.crespogar...@telefonica.com> Resent-Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:24 PM Hi, I do not support that draft. I think it is a very tiny minor update which can incorporated in RFC7432bis. Regards, Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer Cisco Systems Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these forms: Segment Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22> http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.i...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 05:05 To: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com> Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" <draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org>, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect Hi, The poll has ended. I haven't seen a lot of support from the various vendor while Jorge has mentioned that there are multiple implementations. Before closing definitely this poll, I would like to let the opportunity to other vendors to raise their voice and support the draft especially if they have implementations. I will let an additional week. Stephane On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:29 PM <stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>> wrote: Hi, This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect-04 [1] Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list. We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress without answers from all the authors and contributors. Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document. If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This poll for adoption closes on 16th September 2019. Regards, Stephane and Matthew [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect/ [Orange logo]<http://www.orange.com/> Stephane Litkowski Network Architect Orange/SCE/EQUANT/OINIS/NET Orange Expert Future Networks phone: +33 2 23 06 49 83 <https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%202%2023%2028%2049%2083%20> NEW ! mobile: +33 6 71 63 27 50 <https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%206%2037%2086%2097%2052%20> NEW ! stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
