Eric, Regarding Regarding your second DISCUSS point "I wonder how the length of the "IP Prefix" field can be known by the receiver ?"
This length can be unambiguously inferred from the length of the IP Prefix sub-TLV because in accordance with Section 3.1 of RFC 9136 the IP Prefix and the GW IP address in the NLRI of EVPN IP Prefix 9Type 5) routes MUST be from the same family (either both are IPv4 or both are IPv6). At the same time I fully agree that this deserves explicit clarification by the authors. Regards, Sasha -----Original Message----- From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of ?ric Vyncke via Datatracker Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 1:02 PM To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org; bess-cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; Matthew Bocci <matthew.bo...@nokia.com>; matthew.bo...@nokia.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] [bess] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-09: Discuss 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://clicktime.symantec.com/15sM1Gc6AY26NeWG4mtjV?h=fMSSL2DZa8PWDKeoV_WU98RtZ1-L1Go5M78gceLKtvE=&u=https://clicktime.symantec.com/15sM1Gc6AnEk2fPYRAnxP?h=rPr4T36xJXeX7CYjROGRv7E-Y3MeayQviNlHFtXZ8Tc=&u=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://clicktime.symantec.com/15sLvSQohvLVxhgLXDVas?h=rFOi45hn5CAcc0c3p0NleETW_n-OSK0Pf0DNfFoo42E=&u=https://clicktime.symantec.com/15sLvSQoiAZ9ciZcscPom?h=Cr9Yso3cP5WwFFjth2L43SXrblZNgEgKKxzAH8vK6No=&u=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document, it can only help operations. Please find below two blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Matthew Bocci for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # DISCUSS (blocking) As noted in https://clicktime.symantec.com/15sM66oNd9hgnbLBcLHt7?h=x8dkjmRZ81ni2AVC8joih18UQqV2oxAR7Em7a3BWl1A=&u=https://clicktime.symantec.com/15sM66oNdPvLScDTxjC71?h=5XSWHNDO-opR1Y6OamjkBG1vzlnpfQlQ2CL4mkzUFqo=&u=https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ## Missing normative references Even experienced authors sometimes forget to add normative references to RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 ;-) ## Section 4.4 Probably due to my lack of knowledge about EVPN and RFC 9136 et al, but I wonder how the length of the "IP Prefix" field can be known by the receiver ? There is a "IP Prefix length" field but it seems to indicate the prefix length, e.g., "IP Prefix Len" field could be 32 bit but the "IP Prefix" field itself could be the 128-bit value of 2001:db8:: May I strongly suggest adding clarification text if my understanding is incorrect ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # COMMENTS (non blocking) ## Typos I had not the same patience as Jim Guichard for catching all typos... But, it is surprising that there are so many left at this stage of the publication process. Please run a proof reader. ## Section 1 Please expand "PBB" at first use. ## Section 4.1 Even if the old RFC 7432 (dated 8 years ago) only understands 48-bit MAC addresses, there are MAC addresses with different length. Should this document handle those MAC addresses ? ## Section 6.1 Is there a reason why the MAC addresses are not written in the IEEE standard way ? I.e., "00aa.00bb.00cc" should be written as "00-AA-00-BB-00-CC". In 2023, I would have preferred to have an IPv6 example rather than an IPv4 one. ## Section 7 Are there mitigation techniques ? _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://clicktime.symantec.com/15sMAvzf5mPHCYA79th2j?h=WI06Ako5IJmLuIla9F1zhaKaDEXnk883qS1Jz3RuUms=&u=https://clicktime.symantec.com/15sMAvzf61bvrZ3PWHbFd?h=RGO6_50UhoLvzyc-G-VPtVBF1vBVxf2NAxF_-ZzMmw4=&u=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
