Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bier-evpn-08
review-ietf-bier-evpn-08-rtgdir-lc-bonica-2023-07-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bier-evpn
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-07-11
Requested 2023-06-27
Requested by Andrew Alston
Authors Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Tony Przygienda , Ali Sajassi , Jorge Rabadan
I-D last updated 2023-07-10
Completed reviews Intdir Telechat review of -10 by Haoyu Song (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Mohit Sethi (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -08 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Himanshu C. Shah (diff)
Comments 
Requesting last call review before putting this one into last call

Thanks
Assignment Reviewer Ron Bonica
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-bier-evpn by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/-5lpbzx9-KO4OH8VDsnXfrZRmo0
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 14)
Result Has nits
Completed 2023-07-10
review-ietf-bier-evpn-08-rtgdir-lc-bonica-2023-07-10-00
This draft is ready for publication, but has a few NITS:

The draft includes more than a few grammatical errors. I will not call out
each. Please run a grammar checker over it.

Section 2:
 "Tunnel Type".  The same codepoint 0x0B that IANA has assigned for [RFC8556]
 for the new tunnel type "BIER" is used for EVPN as well."

  This sentence needs to be reworked (e.g., for [RFC8556] for)

""Tunnel Identifier".  When the "tunnel type" field is "BIER", this
      field contains two subfields.  The text below is exactly as in
      [RFC8556]."

   When is the tunnel type not "BIER"?

   Two subfields or three?

6. Security Considerations

How do you know that this protocol does not introduce new security
consideration. If you don't tell me how, I will just have to take your word for
it. One or two sentences explaining how you came to this conclusion might help.