Hi Stefane, Yes, the document is much improved. There's the last exchange below which I didn't get a response to. I think that would help convey the intent of the authors more clearly.
Thanks, Anoop On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:01 AM <slitkows.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anoop, > > > > Could you confirm that you are fine with the changes proposed by Luc, so > we can move the draft forward to next steps ? > > > > Thanks ! > > > > > > *From:* Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> > *Sent:* lundi 5 juillet 2021 21:39 > *To:* Luc André Burdet <laburdet.i...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess-cha...@ietf.org; BESS <bess@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02 > > > > Thanks Luc. > > > > Would it be possible to add a line in section 4 along the lines of: > > > > "While the various algorithms for DF election are discussed in Sections > 4.2-4.4, unlike all-active load balancing, the choice of algorithm in this > solution doesn't impact performance in any way since there is only one > active link." > > > > Anoop > > > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:31 AM Luc André Burdet <laburdet.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thank you for your careful review Anoop; > > I have uploaded -03 which I believe addresses all comments. > > > > Regarding the section specifying procedures for all DF Election > algorithms: it is included per a previous review comment, primarily to be > comprehensive for all existing DF Algos. I agree the *result* may > generally not vary much but the details of the procedure need to be > specified. I hope this clears up any confusion. > > > > Regards, > > Luc André > > > > Luc André Burdet | Cisco | laburdet.i...@gmail.com | Tel: +1 613 254 > 4814 > > > > > > *From: *BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani < > an...@alumni.duke.edu> > *Date: *Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 19:23 > *To: *"slitkows.i...@gmail.com" <slitkows.i...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *"bess-cha...@ietf.org" <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, BESS <bess@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02 > > > > > > I support publication of this document. The following are my comments. > > > > == > > Abstract > > > > - I think it would be better to list the RFC rather than say "EVPN > standard", since EVPN standard is an evolving term. > > - "support of port-active" -> "support for port-active" > > - The last line of the abstract should be moved to the introduction. > > > > Section 1 > > > > - "The determinism provided by active-standby per interface is also > required for certain QOS features to work." > > Can you provide an example of this? > > - Change > > "A new term of load-balancing mode, port-active load- balancing is then > defined." > > to > > "A new load-balancing mode, port-active load-balancing is defined." > > > > - Change > > "This draft describes how that new redundancy mode can be supported via > EVPN" > to > "This draft describes how that new load balancing mode can be supported > via EVPN" > > (Just for consistency, I think it would be better to search the > doc throughout and make sure that "redundancy" is not being used in place > of "load balancing", since we are defining a new load balancing method, not > a new redundancy method/topology.) > > > > - Is "Bundle-Ethernet interfaces" a well-known term? I think it may be > better to drop Bundle. I am not sure if what is meant here is "members of > a LAG". > > > > - "multi-homing to CE" -> "multi-homing to the CE". > > > > Section 2 > > > > - Change > > "form a bundle and operate as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG)" > > to > > "form and operate as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG)" > > (In EVPN bundling normally refers to many:1 mapping of VLAN to VNI/service > instance). > > > > - Include reference for ICCP. > > > > - Change > > "CE device connected to Multi-homing PEs may has" > > to > > "CE device connected to multi-homing PEs may have" > > > > - Change > > "Links in the Ethernet Bundle" > > to > > "links in the LAG" > > > > - Change > > "Any discrepancies from this list is left for future study." > > to > > "Any discrepancies from this list are left for future study." > > > > Section 3 > > > > - Missing period at the end of (b). > > > > - Layer2 attributes -> Layer-2 attributes. > > > > Section 4.2/4.3 > > > > I got a bit confused here. The draft discusses Modulo, HRW. Do we > essentially end up with a single active link, but just that which link is > chosen is dependent on the algorithm? If so, what is the benefit of doing > so? I can see why multiple algorithms are of value when we are doing > VLAN-based load balancing to multiple active links. > > > > Section 5 > > > > - "Bundle-Ethernet" -> "LAG" > > > > Section 5.1 > > > > - "per ES routes for fast convergence" -> "per ES route for fast > convergence" > > > > Section 5.2 > > > > - "per EVI routes" -> "per EVI route" > > > > Section 7 > > > > - spurious 'g'. > > > > - missing period under the second sub-bullet of point 'f'. > > > > > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:31 AM <slitkows.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello WG, > > > > > > This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on > > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02 [1]. > > > > > > This poll runs until * the 7th of June *. > > > > > > 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. The Document won't progress without answers from > > all the Authors and Contributors. > > > > There is currently no IPR disclosed. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2]. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Stephane & Matthew > > > > > > [1] > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa/ > > > > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
