Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Well, this RFC only changes the “unassigned” code points outlined in rfc7385 which in turn is already folded into IANA assignments. It does not changes any of the existing code points assignments for tunnel types, experimental, and reserved mentioned in rfc7385. So, as long as we update the IAN

Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

I was referring to this document being marked as Updating rfc7385. In any case, that works for me. Thanks! Alvaro. On 8/22/17, 10:41 AM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Alvaro, I am not modifying rfc7385 but rather trying to maintain backward/forward compatibili

Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Hi Alvaro, I am not modifying rfc7385 but rather trying to maintain backward/forward compatibility with it. The reason, I am defining additional “experimental" and “reserved” code points, is to maintain backward/forward compatibility with the rfc7385 code points. The new “experimental” and “res

Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Ali: Hi! RFC7385 already defines an Experimental range, why do we need another one? Same question about reserving 0x7F (if rfc7385 already reserved 0xFF). One of the reasons I’m asking is because if you’re only changing the 0x0C – 0xFA range, which is currently unassigned, the you (1) only ne

Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Trying for the 2nd time because of the format scramble in the previous email. Value MeaningReference 0x0C-0x7A Unassigned 0x7B-0x7E Experimentalthis document 0x7FReserved this documen

Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Hi Alvaro, You're right. I had some holes in my assignment. Following should fix it. Value Meaning Reference 0x0C-0x7A Unassigned 0x7B-0x7E Experimental this document 0x7F Reserved this document 0x80-0xFA Reserved for Composite tunnel this document 0xFB-0xFE Experimental RFC738

Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Ali: Hi! So, you’re really only changing the 0x0C – 0xFA range, right? If my hex is not wrong, you’re missing some pieces below: 0x40-0x7F, and 0xC0-0xCF, which I’m assume remain Unassigned, right? Thanks! Alvaro. On 8/16/17, 5:54 PM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> wrote

Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Hi Carlos, Thanks for additional comments. Please refer to my replies inline. From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 6:57 PM To: Cisco Employee mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> Cc: "ops-...@ietf.org" mailto:ops-...@

Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Thanks Ali. General Ack to all your responses, make sense. A follow-up question, though: I notice “Reserved” in a few places. For example in Figure 4, which seems to make sense as the Reserved is a Must Be Zero (MBZ) However, on the Flags, it says: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-

Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Hi Carlos, Thanks for your review and comments. Please see inline for my responses. On 8/7/17, 2:46 PM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro Review result: Has Issues Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro Review result: Has Nits (and one potential I

[bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro Review result: Has Issues Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro Review result: Has Nits (and one potential Issue) I am the OPS-DIR reviewer and in general I do not have operational concerns with this document. The main issue I have is in regards to the redefinition of the MSB of