Subject: [bess] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 10:02:41 -0700

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the document and thanks to David Black for TSVART review.

Nits/comments:

 * P-MAC and C-MAC are these defined somewhere else? References would be nice
 here.

 * Section 1.3,  Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 describes P nodes in different
 ways and that has created confusion to me. Can this be well defined in the
 terminology section once and just be used in other place?

 * Section 2.5 : "[802.3]" is this supposed to be a reference? it leads to
 nowhere.

 * Section 3.1.1.2.1 : first time encountered "network management station
 (NMS)", if this document is not introducing it then I would suggest to at this
 to section 1.3 and add some descriptive texts, otherwise define it.

 * Section 3.1.2.1 : would be nice to expand MTU.

 * Section 3.2.1: I  can't really parse - "EVPN Network OAM SHOULD provide
 mechanisms for measuring packet loss for a given service [RFC7680] [RFC6673]."
 are these IPPM mechanisms recommended to be used for EVPN networks? or are
 those merely examples?

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:21:40 -0400

Thanks for your comments. See below.

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:02 PM Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> ...

P-MAC does not occur in the draft; I think you mean B-MAC. C-MAC is
Customer/Client MAC address and B-MAC is Backbone MAC address as
further specified in RFC 7623. These can be spelled out and a
reference to RFC 7623 (which is already listed in the References for
the draft) added.

>  terminology section once and just be used in other place?

OK, except I think it should be spelled out on first use in 2.1. But
certainly the wording should be parallel in these cases.

>  * Section 2.5 : "[802.3]" is this supposed to be a reference? it leads to

Yes, it is intended to be reference to IEEE Std 802.3-2015 (or
whatever the most recent version is). I have no idea why the nits
checker doesn't complain about this being missing from the References
sections. If it did, it would already have been fixed. Since this is
just an example, I think it can be added as an Informational
Reference.

>  to section 1.3 and add some descriptive texts, otherwise define it.

Would it be sufficient to add an entry in the terminology section
(1.3) and a reference to RFC 6623?

>  * Section 3.1.2.1 : would be nice to expand MTU.

Sure.

>  are these IPPM mechanisms recommended to be used for EVPN networks? or are

These are examples.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 07:29:36 +0000

Hi,

Thanks for the responses. Please see inline below.

BR
Zahed

On 2021-04-07, 20:21, "Donald Eastlake" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Yes, I meant B-MAC and C-MAC . And yes spelling out and reference will be helpful.

OK.

Yes, that will do.

    Sure.

    These are examples.

In that case, I would suggest to rephrase the sentence to be clear that those are examples. 

    Thanks,
    Donald

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:13:28 -0400

I believe we are in agreement on resolutions of all your comments.

Thanks,
Donald