Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-16: 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-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. I am updating this ballot following the latest document update which addresses my comments. My thanks to the authors for this very helpful update. I would like to share the following further comments on v16 of the document: 1) Please introduce normative reference to rfc9819 in addition to rfc9252 when referencing ESI filtering for EVPN with SRv6 (i.e., End.DT2M with Arg.FE2) since that RFC updates the base rfc9252. 2) For all use of the "MPLS Label" field in the PTA for SRv6, it would be good to say that the value 0 is put in that field per RFC6514 and the SRv6 SID is placed in the BGP Prefix SID appropriate TLV. And then state that only when transposition scheme is used for efficient BGP encoding, that the whole or portion of the function part of the SRv6 SID is encoded in the MPLS Label field. This is just a suggestion to clarify - I leave it to the authors. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
