A Network Virtualization Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-12
Yes
(Alvaro Retana)
No Objection
Warren Kumari
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -10)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-01-10 for -10)
Unknown
Please expand the following acronyms upon first use; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for guidance. - VXLAN - NVGRE - POD - GRE - Generic Routing Encapsulation - GENEVE - NV - ARP - Address Resolution Protocol - RR - Resource Record - ECMP - Equal-Cost Multipath - PIM-SM - Protocol Independent Multicast - PIM-SSM - BIDIR-PIM - IP-VRF - LSP - Label Switched Path - iBGP Also, please be consistent about capitalization of "ToR" versus "TOR", "VxLAN" versus "VXLAN", and "NvGRE" versus "NVGRE".
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-01-09 for -10)
Unknown
I prefer the comments about Geneve being left in the draft. The other 2 encapsulations are ISE. Geneve will be the Standards Track encapsulation - so I find the framing useful.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-12-29 for -10)
Unknown
Both the Abstract and Introduction contain text like this: This specification is also applicable to GENEVE encapsulation; however, some incremental work is required which will be covered in a separate document. and the Introduction references draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve-00.txt, which looks like an individual -00 draft. I wonder if it would be better to drop the promise from this document, and make the relationship clear in whatever version of draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve is published. I'm fine with the working group publishing this draft with the promise included, but wanted to ask while we're reviewing it, rather than later.
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -10)
Unknown