Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
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").
This document reads like an informational document to me.
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.