Skip to main content

Interconnect Solution for Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Overlay Networks
draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-10

Yes

Alvaro Retana

No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Ben Campbell)
(Benoît Claise)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana Yes

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2018-02-19 for -08)
I have some nits to provide:
Section 1:
   BUM: it refers to the Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast
I suggest dropping "it" (so,   "BUM: refers to the Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast")

Section 2:
"While this model provides a scalable and efficient multi-tenant  solution within the Data Center, it might not be easily extended to the Wide Area Network (WAN) in some cases due to the requirements and existing deployed technologies. "
I must admit that I don't quite understand the point of "in some cases due to the requirements" - what is this trying to say? Is it needed? If so, is the "in some cases" bit needed (the "it might not be" feels like weasel words already).

Nit: "This document describes a Interconnect " -> "This document describes an Interconnect "

Question: "This document describes a Interconnect solution for EVPN overlay networks, assuming that the NVO Gateway (GW) and the WAN Edge functions can be decoupled in two separate systems or integrated into the same system."
I suspect that I'm missing something, but I don't quite understand the "assuming that" bit. You are saying that they can either be separate or combined, is there a 3rd option? Or is the "assuming" redundant?

Questions: You say "Per-flow load balancing is not a strong requirement since a deterministic path per service is usually required..." -- doesn't this make it not just not a strong requirement, but rather a non-goal, or something to be avoided? ("Not a strong requirement" sounds like it would be a nice-to-have, but that conflicts with "deterministic path").

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2018-02-21 for -09)
I agree with Mirja's comment, and am curious about what aspects of this document
are believed to make it standards-track.

ID Nits reports:

  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC7432]), which it
     shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
     documents in question.

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -08)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2018-02-20 for -08)
Nicely written.

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -08)

                            

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2018-02-19 for -08)
This document reads like an informational document to me.

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)