Subject: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:49:54 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-09: 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-inter-subnet-forwarding/

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

Bigger stuff:

I'll see Benjamin's DISCUSS (meaning I support it) and raise him the two
seemingly normative references to [TUNNEL-ENCAP], which is also undefined.

As someone not from the Routing Area, I found this a little hard to read
because it becomes quite dense with acronyms in some places.

Is Section 13 intended to remain in the final published version?  Is it needed?

In the Abstract, please expand all acronyms on first use in the abstract, per
the I-D Guidelines.

Lesser stuff:

Thanks for the glossary in Section 1.  I note that, although defined in the
glossary here, the terms "DGW", "Ethernet A-D route", "GRE", "GW IP", "IPL",
"ML", and "VXLAN" are not used anywhere else in this document.

There are lots of places where a single hyphen is used to break up a sentence,
such as to introduce an example.  These should be em dashes, or commas, or
maybe semicolons, but not simply hyphens.

A few nits:

Section 2:

* "... all the inter-subnet forwarding are performed ..." -- s/are/is/

* "... connected to the same PE, wanted to communicate ..." -- remove the comma

Section 3:

* "A MAC-VRF can consists of one ..." -- either drop "can", or use "consist"

---

From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:58:49 +0000

Hi Murray,

Thanks for your review and comments. Please see my responses inline marked with "AS>".

Cheers,
Ali

On 7/13/20, 10:50 PM, "Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Bigger stuff:

AS> Added the reference to tunnel-encap.

AS> removed this one-line section since other RFCs don't have such an explicit IPR section.

AS> Done.

    Lesser stuff:

AS> removed the unused terms.

AS> done.

    A few nits:

    Section 2:

AS> done.

AS> done.

    Section 3:

AS> done.