Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2021-09-07
Requested 2021-08-24
Authors Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Wen Lin , Jorge Rabadan , Keyur Patel , Ali Sajassi
I-D last updated 2021-08-30
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -11 by Sasha Vainshtein (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -09 by Gorry Fairhurst (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Scott O. Bradner (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -11 by Scott O. Bradner (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Gorry Fairhurst
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2021-08-30
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC if you reply to or forward this review.

This document specifies procedure updates for broadcast, unknown unicast, and
multicast (BUM) traffic in Ethernet VPNs (EVPN), including selective multicast,
and provider tunnel segmentation.  There is a normative reference to
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy, which normatively refers to this spec.

This draft focusses on topics beneath the transport layer. It does not appear
to introduce specific transport protocol concerns.

1. A common concern for transports using tunnels is the topic of fragmentation
and packet size discovery.  This is not mentioned, and it could be useful to
point to the relevant section of a spec (I note that path "segmentation" in
this draft relates to something different, in RFC 7524).

2. A general comment is that the draft section 1 states "It is expected that
audience is familiar with EVPN and MVPN concepts and terminologies", I suggest
it would none-the-less be very helpful to: * Include appropriate RFC references
to where these terms are defined (.e.g. RFC7432?); * Check all the
abbreviations and either define each in section 1 or simply expand on first use
in this document;

3. Section 8. Describes a temporary IANA assignment, which I presume
publication of this draft confirms?  I expect an IANA note to this effect would
help the IANA Team.