Last Call Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-09
review-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-09-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-02-05-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>



Document:                         draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-09.txt



Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg



Review Date:                     5 February 2015



IETF LC End Date:             26 January 2015



IETF Telechat Date:         5 February 2015



Summary:                         The document is well written, and almost ready
for publication. However, there are some editorial nits and questions that I’d
like to authors to address.



Major Issues: None



Minor Issues: None



Editorial nits:



General:



              QGEN_1:            I don’t see the “PE” abbreviation extended
              anywhere. Is it a well-known abbreviation, or should it be
              extended on first occurrence (or explained in the Terminology
              section)?



--------------



Section 4:



              Q4_1:    I suggest to re-write the sentence to something like:



                             “The requirements for PBB-EVPN consist of all EVPN

                             requirements [RFC7209], and the additional
                             requirements

                             described in this section.”



              Q4_2:    The section name says “BGP MPLS Based EVPN Overview”.



                             However, the first sentence then says “This
                             section provides an overview of EVPN.”.



                             So, is the section about BGP MPLS Based EVPN, or
                             about EVPN in general? Based on the answer, I
                             suggest to align the section name and the first
                             sentence.





--------------





Section 4.1:



              Q4-1_1: I guess “[EVPN] PE” shall be “EVPN PE”, i.e. not a
              reference.



                             “In typical operation, an [EVPN] PE sends…”



                             …should be:



                             “In typical operation, an EVPN PE sends…”



              Q4-1_2: Should there be a reference (or, explanation in the
              Terminology section) for “data center interconnect (DCI)”?





--------------





Section 4.2:



              Q4-2_1: The text says “Certain applications, such as virtual
              machine mobility,….”



              Is virtual machine mobility considered an application?



              Would it be more appropriate to say “such as those providing
              virtual machine mobility”, or “such as those using virtual
              machine mobility”?





--------------





Section 5:



              Q5_1: I suggest to modify “The solution involves…” to “The
              PBB-EVPN solution involves…”



              Q5_2: I guess there should be a new line after “The PE nodes
              perform the following functions:”, before the first bullet.





--------------





Section 7:



              Q7_1: I suggest to replace the “[EVPN]” reference with “EVPN”.





--------------



Section 8:



              Q8_1: Is ARP a well-known abbreviation, or should it be extended
              on first occurrence?



              Q8_2: Is a reference needed for ARP/ARP-proxy?



--------------



Section 10:



              Q10_1: The text says:



“In this section, we discuss the advantages of the PBB-EVPN solution

              in the context of the requirements set forth in section 3 above.”



              I don’t think section 3 is “above”, because there are quite many
              chapters in between :)



Q10_2: Related to the previous comment, shouldn’t this section be located
earlier in the document? If not, I think it would be good to reference to
section 10 e.g. in the Introduction section.



--------------



Regards,



Christer