A Network Virtualization Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)
RFC 8365

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Comment (2018-01-09 for -10)
No email
send info
I prefer the comments about Geneve being left in the draft.
The other 2 encapsulations are ISE.  Geneve will be the Standards
Track encapsulation - so I find the framing useful.

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Ben Campbell No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

Comment (2017-12-29 for -10)
No email
send info
Both the Abstract and Introduction contain text like this:

   This specification is also applicable to GENEVE encapsulation;
   however, some incremental work is required which will be covered in a
   separate document.

and the Introduction references draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve-00.txt, which looks like an individual -00 draft. I wonder if it would be better to drop the promise from this document, and make the relationship clear in whatever version of draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve is published. 

I'm fine with the working group publishing this draft with the promise included, but wanted to ask while we're reviewing it, rather than later.

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Adam Roach No Objection

Comment (2018-01-10 for -10)
No email
send info
Please expand the following acronyms upon first use; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for guidance.

 - VXLAN
 - NVGRE
 - POD
 - GRE - Generic Routing Encapsulation
 - GENEVE
 - NV
 - ARP - Address Resolution Protocol
 - RR - Resource Record
 - ECMP - Equal-Cost Multipath
 - PIM-SM - Protocol Independent Multicast
 - PIM-SSM
 - BIDIR-PIM
 - IP-VRF
 - LSP - Label Switched Path
 - iBGP

Also, please be consistent about capitalization of "ToR" versus "TOR", "VxLAN" versus "VXLAN", and "NvGRE" versus "NVGRE".