Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-15: 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-ipvpn-interworking/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors for putting this document together. It was not an easy read, and I have relied on IDR chairs, the WG, and other reviewers to scrutinize the details of the protocol. Gunter, for his part, has indicated strong support for the document. Section 1, paragraph 10 > The procedures defined herein ensure that tenant inter-subnet > connectivity can be maintained across a mix of EVPN and non-EVPN > domains, while preventing routing loops and maintaining protocol > consistency across BGP address families. Thanks to Qin Wu for this OPSDIR review and to Renzo Navas for the SECDIR review. Much like what Med noted in his review, these reviews have not seen any responses from the authors, unless I am missing them. Also, like Med, I believe that the document would have been better off splitting the protocol details from operational considerations that have resulted from the introduction of D-PATH. The comingling of the details would be a hard read for operators wanting to deploy the solution. The document has seven authors, which exceeds the recommended author limit. Has the sponsoring AD agreed that this is appropriate? Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term "his"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Uncited references: [RFC9014]. Section 3, paragraph 40 > segments. Each Domain segment is comprised of <domain segment length, domain > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Did you mean "comprises" or "consists of" or "is composed of"? Section 8.2, paragraph 3 > bles a PE to deterministically select a best path among candidates learned vi > ^ Use "the" before the superlative. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
