Subject: [bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 13:31:50 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway/

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

The concept of an "SR domain identifier" is not part of rfc8402; it is casually
introduced in §3: "A route target ([RFC4360]) is attached to each GW's
auto-discovery route and has its value set to the SR domain identifier."  This
is a significant change to the SR architecture.

In line with the general use of the mechanism in this document (from John's
DISCUSS), I believe it is unnecessary to add anything new to the SR
architecture.  Instead, the term could be changed to simply "local domain
identifier" (or something like that).

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 23:09:22 +0100

Thanks Alvaro,

> COMMENT:

This ties into other comments on the thread: we should have used the term "site" not "domain" as the meaning of "SR domain" is already nailed down in 8402.
An almost global change of "domain" to "site" will be made in -11.
While this doesn't change the casualness or otherwise of the document, it does prevent any changes to the SR architecture.

Cheers,
Adrian