Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10

From: Vijay Gurbani <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:16:50 -0800

Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
Review result: Ready

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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-??
Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
Review Date: 2017-12-21
IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-22
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-11

Summary: The draft is ready as a PS.  It has one Minor issue that needs some
discussion.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues: One.

Nits/editorial comments:  None.

Minor issues:
In S13 (IANA Considerations), I am not sure whether this draft is allocating
the tunnel types or not.  The responsible IANA registry [0] shows that the
tunnel types mentioned in this draft are already allocated through a precursor
individual draft [1], which has long expired.  However, when I look at the IANA
Consideration section in [1], it is empty!  So I am not sure how the IANA
registry in [0] received the allocations.  I think the IANA section of this
draft needs to be updated accordingly.

[0]
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#tunnel-types
[1] http://www.iana.org/go/draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay (the expired individual
draft itself is at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay-03)

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:34:03 -0500

Vijay:

Hi!

Thanks for your review!

The registry has a FCFS registration policy, so at some point in the life
of draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay the code points were requested — not
necessarily in the draft itself.

Even though draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay is tagged in the datatracker to
have replaced draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay, I think you make a good point in
that the registry needs to be updated with the current/correct information.

Authors:  Please add a note in the IANA Considerations Section to have the
reference in the registry point to this document.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On December 21, 2017 at 9:16:53 AM, Vijay Gurbani ([email-masked]) wrote:

Minor issues:

the tunnel types or not. The responsible IANA registry [0] shows that the
tunnel types mentioned in this draft are already allocated through a
precursor
individual draft [1], which has long expired. However, when I look at the
IANA
Consideration section in [1], it is empty! So I am not sure how the IANA
registry in [0] received the allocations. I think the IANA section of this
draft needs to be updated accordingly.

[0]

[1] http://www.iana.org/go/draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay (the expired
individual
draft itself is at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay-03)