Thank you for reviewing, Ralf.
We’ll leave the current normative language then. If anyone else has strong opinions about it, we can discuss it.
Jorge
From: BESS <bess-bounces@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 6:29 PM
To: int-dir@xxxxxxxx <int-dir@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, bess@xxxxxxxx <bess@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags.all@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bess] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05
Reviewer: Ralf Weber
Review result: Ready
Moin!
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
The draft does a very good job explaining the motivation, definition and use of
the extended community flags with good and applicable examples. I personally
would have used stronger (MUST) language for the R and O bits set to 0 on the
IPv4->MAC transmission (3.1 sub point 2), but as these are optional anyway and
must be ignored by the receiver it really makes no difference.
So long
-Ralf
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
