Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05
review-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05-intdir-lc-weber-2020-08-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2020-08-28
Requested 2020-08-14
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Jorge Rabadan, Senthil Sathappan, Kiran Nagaraj, Wen Lin
Draft last updated 2020-08-28
Completed reviews Intdir Last Call review of -05 by Ralf Weber (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Mališa Vučinić
Assignment Reviewer Ralf Weber
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05-intdir-lc-weber-2020-08-28
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/a7p3WboZbUR6SqIoST3HezR6Dvg
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-08-28

Review
review-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05-intdir-lc-weber-2020-08-28

Moin!

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags. 

These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/

The draft does a very good job explaining the motivation, definition and use of the extended community flags with good and applicable examples. I personally would have used stronger (MUST) language for the R and O bits set to 0 on the IPv4->MAC transmission (3.1 sub point 2), but as these are optional anyway and must be ignored by the receiver it really makes no difference.

So long
-Ralf