Early Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop-06
review-ietf-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop-06-rtgdir-early-boucadair-2023-11-29-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2023-12-08 | |
| Requested | 2023-11-29 | |
| Requested by | Stephane Litkowski | |
| Authors | Ali Sajassi , Kesavan Thiruvenkatasamy , Samir Thoria , Ashutosh Gupta , Luay Jalil | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-02-25 (Latest revision 2025-10-19) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -06
by Mohamed Boucadair
(diff)
Genart Early review of -06 by Susan Hares (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Stig Venaas (diff) Opsdir Early review of -09 by Ran Chen (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Mohamed Boucadair |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/5s9dyvi1jNRXMC3lV5hYKaNVkoY | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 10) | |
| Result | Has issues | |
| Completed | 2023-11-29 |
review-ietf-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop-06-rtgdir-early-boucadair-2023-11-29-00
Hi Ali, Kesavan, Samir, Ashutosh, and Luay, Thanks for the effort put into this document. I'm impressed by your patience to carry this effort for +6 years. I do think that the overall document is in good track an its core contribution is almost stable. No serious warnings but a set of items that I think are worth clarifying (see the detailed review, fwiw). * pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop-06-rev%20Med.pdf * doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop-06-rev%20Med.doc It would be helpful to include manageability aspects in one single section. I'm not convinced that Sections 8/9 fit in the core document. Likewise, the set of requirements are not linked to the rest of the document. I would expecting some "assessment" of how these are met in the design. Feel free to grab whatever you think useful in the review. Cheers, Med