Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling-01
Requested revision 01 (document currently at 04)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-07-14
Requested 2023-06-30
Requested by Stephane Litkowski
Authors Ali Sajassi , Mankamana Prasad Mishra , Samir Thoria , Jorge Rabadan , John Drake
I-D last updated 2023-07-13
Completed reviews Genart Early review of -03 by Russ Housley (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Mach Chen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mach Chen
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 04)
Result Has issues
Completed 2023-07-13

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before it is submitted to the IESG.

Here are my comments:

1. There are many different uses of multi-homing or the like in the draft,
e.g., "multi-homing", "multihoming", "multihome", "multi-homed", "multihomed";
"non multihoming" vs "non-multihome", etc. The author needs to check through
the document to make the usage consistent. There is a similar issue to
"Broadcast Domain" vs "broadcast domain", "all-active" vs "all active",
"Attachment Circuit" vs "attachment-circuit",etc.

2. For unwell-known acronyms, it's better to expand them upon their first use.
This helps readers understand the context and prevents confusion.

3. There is a concept: multi-homed EVPN peers, but lack of definitions, some
places in the draft also use "multi-homed PEs", "multihomed peers", "multihome
peers", "peering PE", etc. I guess that they are the same meaning and should be
used consistently through the document.

Section 1.1
s/BD-1 has.../In Figure 1, BD-1 has...
s/belongs too/belongs to

Section 1.2
s/forearded to proper AC/forwarded to the proper AC

6. Section 3
1) I assume that the "service interface" is the new defined service interface
in this document, am I right? If so, a "new" should be added before the
"service interface", just as the requirements 5, 6 do. 2) Requirement 1 seems
self-contridiction, multiple VLAN configured on an attachement-circuit, but
each VLAN is represented by a different AC, how to understand this? Rewording
or some clarification needed here. 3) Not sure the intention/meaning of
requirement 2, clarification needed here. 4) Requirement 3 has been stated in
the introduction section, IMHO, the entire section can be removed and put some
of the requirement to other places (e.g., the introduction seciton, the place
where the New service interface is defined.

s/PEs where.../At those PEs where...
s/An attach Attachment.../An Attachment...
s/MAC/IP route.../The MAC/IP Advertisement route
s/to EVPN RT-2/to EVPN Route Type 2 (RT-2)

s/to attach remote MAC address to appropriate AC/to associate the remote MAC
address to the appropriate AC

Should the "local multihomed AC" be "local multihomed PE"?
s/must/MUST, same usage at other places, it needs to check through the whole

"route MUST be programmed to correct subnet", what's the meanning of this
sentence? Rewording/clarification needed here.

Section 5
The current description looks like a general requirement, but does not define
how to achieve this. IMHO, it'e better to move this section Section 6, as
sub-section, and define the details on to detect this error with the BGP
protocol processing.

Section 6.1
s/A new EVPN BGP Extended Community/A new BGP Extended Community
s/...called Attachment Circuit ID/...called Attachment Circuit ID Extended
Community Given the Sub-Type is allocated by the INNA, the "TBD" in the text
and Figure should be update to specific value.

There are 6 authors listed in the front page, according to the IESG/IETF
policy, no more than 5 authors should be listed on the front page unless there
is reasonable cause.