Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10
review-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10-rtgdir-telechat-huston-2018-04-12-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10.txt
Reviewer: Geoff Huston
Review Date: 12 April 2018
IETF LC End Date: not known
Intended Status: Standards Tract

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.

Comments:

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

The Introduction (section 2) should preceded the Terminology and all be placed
in Section 1. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 appear to be a Problem Statement and should
be the content of Section 2. Problem Statement.

The Terminology appears to include a mix of conventional acronym expansion
which could easily be dealt with by explicit expansion on first use. (for
example. the text contains "If the term Tenant System (TS) is used..." and
there is probably no need to explicitly call out this acronym in a terminology
section.)

There is a phrase in the Introduction that seems out of place: "Once the need
for a new EVPN route type is justified, ...". I suggest dropping the phrase on
the assumption that Sections 2.1 and 2.2 have indeed justified this problem and
the proposed solution.

I am confused between the term "IP address length (IPL)" and "IP Prefix Length"
- I an unsure if IPL is an Address family Identifier to distinguish between
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses or some other term. Perhaps the authors may want to use
more conventional terms when appropriate, such as “AFI" rather than “IPL” if
that is really the underlying meaning of this field.

In Figure 3 IP Prefix Route Type, why is an Address Family Identifier missing
from the data structure?

I would not call myself an expert in the area of intra-subnet connectivity in
an MPLS and/or NVO-based networks, so I am not in a good position to comment on
the technical quality of the specification in this draft. The material is
dense, and it is unclear to me if the textual-based description of handling
actions is complete. It is also unclear to me if the use cases sslected in this
draft are inclusive or just represent some random selection of uses cases from
a far larger pool of potential use cases.