Reviewer: Reese Enghardt Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-nvo3-evpn-applicability-04 Reviewer: Reese Enghardt Review Date: 2022-07-06 IETF LC End Date: 2022-07-11 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is well-written, though dense, and it does a good job of breaking down a complex topic. I only found a few nits to make the document more accessible. Major issues: None. Minor issues: Abstract: Please expand NVO3 networks on first use. Please consider adding a sentence to already state in the abstract/introduction that this document does not introduce any new procedures or signaling in EVPN. If EVPN gets updated in future RFCs, does this document apply to these updates? Not sure if it's worth saying anything about this, but I started wondering about this question when seeing the table of EVPN route types in Section 4.1. Section 2: Please expand CLOS on first use. Please add a definition for Tenant System, in addition to expanding the acronym. For the BT definition, not having read RFC7432, I got slightly confused initially, as "Bridge Table" sounded to me like it's a sort-of lookup table on a single NVE, but if it's the instantiation of a BD, it would potentially span multiple NVEs. Having read the doc, it seems like a BT spans multiple NVEs and potentially is the same on all NVEs in the same BD. If this is true, please consider adding a clarifying sentence to the BT definition. Section 4.2: Figure 1 uses the terms "single-active" and "all-active", but the document only defines/explains them in Section 4.7.5 - Is this intentional? Even though Figure 1 uses "single-active" and "all-active", I am not seeing these terms used in any example later on when the terms are explained. Please consider either elaborating on how the terms relate to the Figure 1 example or removing these terms from Figure 1. Section 4.2.2: Please consider expanding PMSI on first use. Nits/editorial comments: Section 4: "The intend is" -> "The intent is" -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
