Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04
Hi Matthew, I've read this draft and I supoort WG adoption. Best Regards, Xiao Min 原始邮件 发件人：Bocci,Matthew(Nokia-GB) 收件人：draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-...@ietf.org ;bess@ietf.org ; 抄送人：bess-cha...@ietf.org ; 日 期 ：2020年02月26日 22:42 主 题 ：[bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess Hello, This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 [1] . Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list. We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress without answers from all the authors and contributors. Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document. If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 11th March 2020. Regards, Matthew and Stephane [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd/___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04
I support WG adoption of this draft. Thanks, Shunwan From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 10:42 PM To: draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 Hello, This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 [1] . Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list. We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress without answers from all the authors and contributors. Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document. If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 11th March 2020. Regards, Matthew and Stephane [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd/ ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04
Matthew, I support adoption of this draft. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:42 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > > This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for > draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 [1] . > > > > Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group > list. > > > > We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to > this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with > IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > > > If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't > progress without answers from all the authors and contributors. > > > > Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document. > > > > If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please > explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been > disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > > > This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 11th March 2020. > > > > Regards, > > Matthew and Stephane > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd/ > > > > > > > ___ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-05
Hi Stephane, Thanks for reviewing the new rev of the document and providing us with your comments. We’ll try to take care of your comments within next few days. Regards, Ali From: "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 1:29 AM To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org" , "Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet)" Cc: 'BESS' Subject: Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-05 Resent-From: Resent-To: Cisco Employee , , , , Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 1:28 AM Hi Authors, Please find below my chair review: Nits: == Missing Reference: 'ETH-OAM' is mentioned on line 606, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'MPLS-OAM' is mentioned on line 612, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'PW-OAM' is mentioned on line 612, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'EVPN-IRB' is mentioned on line 746, but not defined Introduction: There should be an issue with XML source as the reference to RFC7432 is not a link. Section 1.1: The figure legend is not understandable as there are two many acronyms. “Figure 1: DHD/DHN (both SA/AA) and SH on same ENNI” Or It may be good to put terminology section before. Section 1.2: Similar comment for Figure 2 In addition, I’m wondering if there are some issues with the figure itself regarding the attachment of EVCs. Finally section talks about Access MPLS Networks, but figure talks about Aggregation Network. Of course this is applicable to both cases, but legend/title/figure are not matching. “ Since the PWs for the two VPWS instances can be aggregated into the same LSPs going to the MPLS network, a common virtual ES can be defined for LSP1 and LSP2. This vES will be shared by two separate EVIs in the EVPN network.” Which MPLS network are you talking about ? Aggregation or IP/MPLS ? This is ambiguous. Section 3.1: Can’t we merge R1a,b, c and d as a single requirement ? Section 3.2: I’m a bit concerned about the scaling requirements. Scaling is always a matter of platform resources and computing power. That’s fine to have these numbers in mind when building the protocol, however we can’t be sure that all platforms will be able to handle this numbers. Section 3.4: The requirements are not expressed correctly IMO. When reading R4a and b, this definition/requirement comes indirectly from RFC7432. Shouldn’t we use something more tied to vES requirement like: a vES SHOULD support EVCs based on a VLAN based/bundle service Section 3.5 s/defult procedure/default procedure/ Needs also to comply to RFC8584 ? Section 3.7 Need to create a new paragraph for R7b,c,d. MHD and MHN are not expanded in terminology section. Section 3.8: Need a paragraph separation to introduce R8a. Section 4.1: Needs also to comply to RFC8584 ? Brgds Stephane ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04
I support the WG adoption of draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 Linda Dunbar On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:42 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for > draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 [1] . > > > > Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list. > > > > We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this > Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR > rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > > > If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't > progress without answers from all the authors and contributors. > > > > Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document. > > > > If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly > respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in > conformance with IETF rules. > > > > This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 11th March 2020. > > > > Regards, > > Matthew and Stephane > > > > [1] > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd%2Fdata=02%7C01% > 7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ca34dcc37fdf84884180d08d7bf8f1577%7C0f > ee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637188493609067973sdata= > dzXKMLHwNlAuCp6ROsRH2WGINBlmaAMW8y1iKZZS%2FE8%3Dreserved=0 > > > > > > ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbessdata=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ca34dcc37fdf84884180d08d7bf8f1577%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637188493609067973sdata=P6ZjMFTbgGTZNcwfS%2BnD3quy9WycA0k5lrdpBlg03cg%3Dreserved=0 ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04
I am not aware on any undisclosed IPR in this draft. I support WG adoption of this draft as a co-author. Thanks, Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:42 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for > draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 [1] . > > > > Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list. > > > > We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this > Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR > rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > > > If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't > progress without answers from all the authors and contributors. > > > > Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document. > > > > If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly > respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in > conformance with IETF rules. > > > > This poll for adoption closes on Wednesday 11th March 2020. > > > > Regards, > > Matthew and Stephane > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd/ > > > > > > ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] Request for IANA early allocation for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services code points
Hello, We would like to request IANA to perform early allocations for https://tools..ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-02#section-9.1 as follows: Value TypeReference - 4Deprecated 5 (suggested)SRv6 L3 Service TLV 6 (suggested)SRv6 L2 Service TLV Thanks, Gaurav (on behalf of co-authors) ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] Milestones changed for bess WG
Changed milestone "Submit specifications for VPLS multi-homing to IESG as PS", resolved as "Done", added draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming to milestone. Changed milestone "Submit a Yang or SMI datamodel for RFC4364 to IESG as PS", set due date to December 2020 from January 2019, added draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang to milestone. Changed milestone "Submit a Yang or SMI datamodel for E-VPN to IESG as PS", set due date to December 2020 from January 2019, added draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang to milestone. Changed milestone "Submit a YANG datamodel for L2VPN to IESG as PS", set due date to December 2020 from January 2019, added draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang to milestone. Changed milestone "Submit a YANG datamodel for mVPN to IESG as PS", set due date to December 2020 from June 2019, added draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-yang to milestone. URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bess/about/ ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-05
Hi Authors, Please find below my chair review: Nits: == Missing Reference: 'ETH-OAM' is mentioned on line 606, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'MPLS-OAM' is mentioned on line 612, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'PW-OAM' is mentioned on line 612, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'EVPN-IRB' is mentioned on line 746, but not defined Introduction: There should be an issue with XML source as the reference to RFC7432 is not a link. Section 1.1: The figure legend is not understandable as there are two many acronyms. "Figure 1: DHD/DHN (both SA/AA) and SH on same ENNI" Or It may be good to put terminology section before. Section 1.2: Similar comment for Figure 2 In addition, I'm wondering if there are some issues with the figure itself regarding the attachment of EVCs. Finally section talks about Access MPLS Networks, but figure talks about Aggregation Network. Of course this is applicable to both cases, but legend/title/figure are not matching. " Since the PWs for the two VPWS instances can be aggregated into the same LSPs going to the MPLS network, a common virtual ES can be defined for LSP1 and LSP2. This vES will be shared by two separate EVIs in the EVPN network." Which MPLS network are you talking about ? Aggregation or IP/MPLS ? This is ambiguous. Section 3.1: Can't we merge R1a,b, c and d as a single requirement ? Section 3.2: I'm a bit concerned about the scaling requirements. Scaling is always a matter of platform resources and computing power. That's fine to have these numbers in mind when building the protocol, however we can't be sure that all platforms will be able to handle this numbers. Section 3.4: The requirements are not expressed correctly IMO. When reading R4a and b, this definition/requirement comes indirectly from RFC7432. Shouldn't we use something more tied to vES requirement like: a vES SHOULD support EVCs based on a VLAN based/bundle service Section 3.5 s/defult procedure/default procedure/ Needs also to comply to RFC8584 ? Section 3.7 Need to create a new paragraph for R7b,c,d. MHD and MHN are not expanded in terminology section. Section 3.8: Need a paragraph separation to introduce R8a. Section 4.1: Needs also to comply to RFC8584 ? Brgds Stephane ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
