Thank you for you review, Lada. >>> **** General comments >>> >>> The ietf-l2vpn-ntw module with about 400 data nodes represents an >>> impressive amount of work. Its size, however, raises some concerns in >>> terms of manageability. For example, if the ITU-T Y-1731 recommendation >>> ever gets updated (I don't know how likely this is), the module will have >>> to be updated. >>> I would therefore suggest to consider factoring out such parts into >>> separate modules. >> [Med] We have already made an effort to factorize many items in: >> * I-D.ietf-vpn-common >> * two separate IANA-maintained modules >> >> One candidate "externalization" that I think would work to address your concern is to move ethernet-segments (and esi types) into a separate module. >> >> I have a preference to work in that direction vs. touching the OAM part. >> >> Would that solve your concern? Thank you. > I think it is up to the authors and WG to consider what to do, maybe > nothing. I am not an expert in this domain, so I have no strong opinion, > but it is certainly better to think twice because the module structure > cannot be easily changed afterwards. Agreed. I'd like to hear other thoughts from the WG (and other authors) on how/if this modularization should be done. Joe -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
