Subject: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:22:56 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: 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-proxy-arp-nd/

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

In addition to Barry's comments, I found that "BD" appears in the glossary
twice, and "SLLA" appears in the glossary but nowhere else in the document.

Are "Address Resolution" and "Large Data Center" formal terms?  If not, they
should be lowercase.

Alluding to a lot of things Alvaro pointed out: Many of the SHOULDs in this
document are bare, in that they give the implementer a choice but no guidance
on how to make that choice.  For instance:

   A Proxy-ARP/ND implementation SHOULD support static, dynamic and
   EVPN-learned entries.

How would I decide whether I've got a use case that justifies not doing one of
those, and what are the interoperability implications of that decision?

I suggest reviewing these.