Hi Joel,
Thanks very much for reviewing.
Based on your comment, we realized that RFC7623 indeed uses B-MAC and C-MAC, and not BMAC and CMAC.
In the revision 08 (just published), we replaced those terms throughout the document to avoid confusion. Also clarified the paragraph you referred to.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, June 30, 2023 at 1:13 PM
To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: bess@xxxxxxxx <bess@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-07
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
Document: draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-07
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2023-06-30
IETF LC End Date: 2023-07-11
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
reviewers note: My thanks to the authors / editors for a very helpful
introduction that made clear the problem to be solved.
Major issues: N/A
Minor issues:
I got a bit confused in section 3, where the text says:
All the other fields are set and used as defined in [RFC7623]. This document
will refer to this route as the BMAC/I-SID route, as opposed to the [RFC7623]
BMAC/0 route (BMAC route sent with Ethernet Tag ID = 0).
I got confused because when I went to RFC 7623, I could not find the string
BMAC/0, and while I tried searching for related terms, I could not find
what term is being distinguished. The string BMAC does not occur in RFC
7623. So this and later (e.g. 4.1) references to 7623 use of BMAC/0 is
confusing.
Nits/editorial comments: N/A
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
