Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-10: No Objection
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://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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-10 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Mankamana Mishra for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. The use of the old template was a trip to the past ;-) (but this is OK). Other thanks to Brian Haberman, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-09-intdir-telechat-haberman-2024-02-22/ (and I have read Jeffrey's replies, thanks) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS (non-blocking) ## Author count Just a minor comment, there are 6 authors while the limit is usually 5. Not a big deal at all for me, and it is justified in the shepherd's write-up. ## Readability In several sections, a network diagram would help the reader. This I-D solves a hard-problem, and it is not an easy read. I sincerely hope that the existing implementations (per shepherd's write-up) are interoperable and follow this specification. ## Section 1.1 The abstract mentions MPLS and IP as backbone while this section is only about IP. Which one is correct ? Please move the BCP 14 template outside of `background` ## Section 1.1.1 Is having TS1 and TS2 on the same BD enough to ensure that mcast traffic is received ? Should the layer-2 infrastructure also be aware of the mcast traffic (i.e., MLD snooping)? After all, the "B" in "BD" is only for broadcast. Would the infinite loop also happen with plain broadcast frames ? ## Section 1.1.2 `The TTL field of the IP datagram` let's rather use "hop limit" in 2024. ## Section 1.1.3 The readers would probably welcome some explanations of why PIM/MLD is not enough in the case of inter-subnet mcast traffic. Or a promise that the explanations are deferred to section 1.2. Or the leading text moved to section 1.2. ## Section 1.3 Which header is it in `header checksum is not changed` ? (IPv6 header has not checksum or is it the L4 checksum ?) The whole section appears like WG requirements for a solution, unsure whether this text belongs to the solution document as these points are no more requirements, but properties of the solution described in this I-D. ## Section 1.4 Any reason why deviate from RFC 5952 in `FF02/16` ? (applies in other places as well) Unsure how to change the document but isn't it a little weird to have terminology so late in the document after so many acronyms have been defined? Probably a matter of taste. Suggest to also define "EVI" on its own rather than being hidden in the definition of another term. ## Section 1.5.1 Where is IMET specified ? The text would benefit of indicated what it is (and adding a clear source of definition == RFC 7432). Is `Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag` specified by this document. It is unclear from the text. ## Section 3.2.3 Should the "AR" acronym be expanded first (even if guessable). ## Section 3.3 Only IGMP is used in this section, should it be stated in the intro that "MLD" is used everywhere as a shorthand of "MLD or IGMP" ? ## Section 4.1 Should there be an expansion for RPF ? # NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ## ethernet vs. Ethernet Usually Ethernet is capitalised. ## Link-local Usually, when used as an adjective, "link-local" is written with an hyphen. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
