Got it. Will clarify. Rishabh.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 5:59 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rishabh, > > I was simply suggesting to switch the ordering of text so that the > non-Transposition case is explained first and then the transposition one > (with the reasoning of BGP efficient encoding). It might perhaps help > clarify the usage of the MPLS Label field. And like I said, up to the > authors since there is nothing technically wrong or unclear in this matter. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 5:39 PM Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ketan, >> We will add normative reference to RFC 9819. As for the "MPLS Label" >> field value, RFC 9252 Section 5 (VPN/IP) specifies Implicit NULL when the >> Transposition scheme is not used, but Section 6.3 (EVPN IMET) already has >> text stating "... it is set as defined in RFC 6514" when the Transposition >> Scheme is not used; however, we can add the clarifying text. >> >> Thanks, >> Rishabh. >> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:36 PM Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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] >>> >>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
