For what it's worth, the change in structure I think has improved readability.
Few small points I noted: There is a type in section 3.1.3: "carried in AFI/SAFI 1/129 (MVPN-IPv4) or 1/129 (MVPN-IPv6)", should be "... 2/129 (MVPN-IPv6)" In section 3.2.1 is stated: "For segmented P-tunnels, each segment can be instantiated by a different technology." Instead of "different technology" would it be better to state "different tunnel type"? I assume at least this refers to the tunnel type. Related to this, should some similar text be included for regular, non-segmented tunnels? Are the tunnel-types of all CPs and tunnel instances in a policy assumed to be the same, or could these be different? cheers, Eduard ________________________________ From: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 10:57 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: [bess] WG review requested on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-17, ending Monday 19th Hi WG, As result of the IESG review, draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp has been modified significantly. We would like to ensure that there is still consensus on the document text after these changes. Please carefully read the document and provide any objection/comment by January 19th. https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-15&url2=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-17&difftype=--html Thanks in advance, Stephane
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
