Thanks for the document. Minor fixes from nits:

  == Missing Reference: 'ES' is mentioned on line 229, but not defined

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
     draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vp

The term "PE" is not explained anywhere in the document. Maybe write out in
full on first mention?


        The Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] and [RFC8584] are
        applicable to this document.

These two references are not working properly.

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-11

Thank you for the work put into this document. As for most I-Ds coming from the BESS WG, it is really difficult to read and to understand, so bear with my lack of BESS context in my review, therefore my review is rather superficial.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Stéphane Litkowski for the shepherd's concise write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Antoine Fressancourt, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-11-intdir-telechat-fressancourt-2024-11-27/ (it has just been posted but I expect authors to interact with Antoine, notably on the readability of the document)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Abstract

Should there be a reference for MC-LAG ?

## Section 1

Should there be an introduction to MC-LAG already in the introduction or move section 2 as a sub-section of section 1 ?

Again, possibly due to my lack of BESS context, but I fail to find an explanation of `active/standby multi-homing at the interface level`, and I am sure that other readers will welcome a definition. Some graphics would help a lot.

If I *guess* correctly, then is packet ordered delivery also a benefit ? If so, then please state it.

## Section 2

Are I1 and I2 interfaces or links in figure 1 ?

BTW, using the aasvg tool will render figures as SVG, i.e., much nicer in HTML (worth investigating but no need to reply).

It is unclear whether there could be more than 2 links/interfaces in this set-up. The text should be clear on this aspect.

If only one link is active, then does it still qualify as a LAG member ?

## Section 3.1

Please provide references for VXLAN, SRv6, LDP.

In the same vein and if not mistaken, there are multiple protocols using the term "designated forwarder", so, let's be specific.

## Section 4.1

Please expand "AC-DF"

Figure 2 has names for the bits, but the names for bits 2 & 5 are not used in the text.

## Section 4.2

Should there be more explanation for the implementers on how the modulo approach work ?

## Section 10

s/the following coauthors have also contributed/the following people have also contributed/ ?