Hi Joel
Thanks for the directorate review comments. Let me incorporate them and publish new version.
Thanks
Parag
From:
Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 9:47 AM
To: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx <rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: bess@xxxxxxxx <bess@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready
This is a routing directorate review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07
provided by Joel Halpern at the request of the routing directorate review team
leaders as input to the routing area directors. Please treat as any other
review comments.
(Apologies for the delay.)
This document is Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Comments:
Major: None
Minor:
Section 4.1 describes the EVPN MAC Sub-TLV. And states it is derived from
MAC/IP advertisement route. I note that in RFC 7623 (PBB-EVPN) there are
restrictions on several of these fields. Should this section note at least
that in the PBB-EVPN case those restrictions apply (probably with a
pointer, not repeating the restrictions)?
Section 4.4 describes EVPN IP Prefix Sub-TLV. From the wording I suspect
that it applies only to the EVPN case and not to the PBB-EVPN case. In
4.3, the text was explicit about that applicability. Could we be equally
clear here?
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
