Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)
draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-07
Yes
(Stewart Bryant)
No Objection
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-20 for -06)
Unknown
Thank you for writing an important document for guiding the future standards development in this area. I have no objection to its publication, but I found a small list of nits you may wish to fix before proceeding. === The RFC Editor will want to move the Introduction to be the first section in the document. If you are revising this document, you might want to take care of that yourselves to make sure that no errors are introduced when it happens. --- This is a good example of when use of upper case words is useful to emphasize the reuirements language, but you are not using them in the sense of RFC 2119. in such cases it is common to vary the bolierplate to say something like: Although this is not a protocol specification, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are used for clarity and emphasis of requirements language and are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. However, I think you should limit your use of this language to within the text of the requirements themselves. For example, look at the first paragraph of Section 4.2: here is is unclear whether the text is stating requirements or guiding the requirements that will be stated later (R2). You may also want to think about the meaning of "SHOULD" in a requirement. Under what circumstances are the developers of a solution allowed to discard this requirement? --- H-VPLS, VPWS and VLAN need to be expanded on first use. --- The concept of "redundancy group" could do with fuller introduction maybe by giving it an entry of its own in Section 2. Similarly, "multi-home group" is used in Section 4 in a way that its meaning can be deduced, but there is no formal definition. --- (R2) A solution MUST be able to exercise as many ECMP paths as possible between any pair of PEs in conjunction with the all-active load-balancing described above. Forgive my pedantry, but "as many as possible" is open to willful misinterpretation. I think you want (R2) A solution MUST be able to exercise all ECMP paths between any pair of PEs in conjunction with the all-active load-balancing described above. --- Section 4.3 The latter is desirable when offering a geo-redundant solution that ensures business continuity for critical applications in the case of power outages, natural disasters, etc. In fact, it is more than "desirable", it is part of the definition of geo-redundancy, isn't it? --- Section 4.4 s/R4:/(R4)/ --- Section 4.6 Readers may find the first sentence ambiguous... There are applications, which require an Ethernet network, rather than a single device, to be multi-homed to a group of PEs. I think... s/which/that/ It is the network that is multi-homed not the the single device. But I may have this wrong. Think about rewording it? --- Section 5 lines 1, 4, and 8 s/usage/use/ --- Section 6 Implementations SHOULD revert to using default values for parameters as and where applicable. Not clear whether this is part of R6e, R6f in its own right, or general discriptive text. "As and where applicable" may be considered by an implementer as an easy way out of having to do anything! You might want to constrain them by making a statement of that applicability in your document. --- Section 7 It is worth noting that the term 'bridge domain' as used above refers to a MAC forwarding table as defined in the IEEE bridge model, and does not denote or imply any specific implementation. A reference for the "IEEE bridge model" would be nice. --- Section 7 It looks to me that this section includes a number of specific requirements that have not been numbered. It would be helpful to call these out explicitly to distinguish them from the descriptive text. --- Section 9 appears to have a number of requirements that are not specifically called out as numbered requirements. --- Section 10 s/(R12)/(R12a)/ --- I would move Section 11 down so that the requirements in Section 12 are not orphaned.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-21 for -06)
Unknown
Minor editorial point: The Introduction reads oddly to me, with four paragraphs in a row that all start with some version of "also": "Furthermore," "Also," "In addition," and "Moreover." I think you can just delete them all, really. (R1c), and others: I'm always skeptical of "MAY" in protocols, but I *really* wonder about it in requirements. What does it mean to say that a solution MAY support something? That seems to me to be entirely a non-requirement. (R3d), and others: Favourable comment here... As Adrian does, I always think it's important to explain SHOULDs, and especially so when SHOULD is used in requirements. Unlike Adrian, though, I think the explanatory text in each section does this quite well; thanks.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-21 for -06)
Unknown
- I'm very surprised not to see any operational requirements, like OAM and fault. Can you please justify why you omitted those? (no objection on this point for now) - The IESG recently reviewed a L2VPN requirements doc, "Requirements for Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in L2VPN", draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt: I don't quite get the link between the two documents: complimentary, cover different use cases, overlapping, etc.? - 4.5. Flexible Redundancy Grouping Support (R5) In order to simplify service provisioning and activation, the multi-homing mechanism SHOULD allow arbitrary grouping of PE nodes into redundancy groups where each redundancy group represents all multi-homed groups that share the same group of PEs. This is best explained with an example: consider three PE nodes - PE1, PE2 and PE3. The multi-homing mechanism MUST allow a given PE, say PE1, to be part of multiple redundancy groups concurrently. For example, there can be a group (PE1, PE2), a group (PE1, PE3), and another group (PE2, PE3) where CEs could be multi-homed to any one of these three redundancy groups. I don't understand "in order to simplify service provisioning and activation" as a justification for this requirement. As the title says, it's about flexibility. If it's really about "simplify service provisioning", then it should be in section 6 - Agreed with Barry on the MAY in a requirements document
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-21 for -06)
Unknown
Vijay Gurbani raised an issue with R13 and R14 that I thought had merit. Should this result in some edits?
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-21 for -06)
Unknown
Just a curiosity question from the Transport Area side of life: Section 4.1., paragraph 2: > i. Layer 2: Source MAC Address, Destination MAC Address, VLAN > ii. Layer 3: Source IP Address, Destination IP Address > iii. Layer 4: UDP or TCP Source Port, Destination Port Has SCTP ever been considered for Flow-based Load Balancing in the scope of this draft? I know that SCTP is not that heavily used by now, but this could change in the near future, especially when it comes to data centers.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-22 for -06)
Unknown
This draft was easy to read and quite clear, with a couple of exceptions. Please consider these comments along with any other comments you receive. In 4.3. Geo-redundant PE Nodes (R3b) A solution MUST NOT assume that the IGP cost from a remote PE to each of the PEs in the multi-homed group is the same. I'm guessing how to read "MUST NOT assume". Is it saying something like this? (R3b) A solution MUST support different IGP costs from a remote PE to each of the PEs in a multi-homed group. In 6. Ease of Provisioning Requirements Implementations SHOULD revert to using default values for parameters as and where applicable. I'm not clear on how I would know that an implementation is reverting "as and where applicable". Is there any guidance about that you could include? I'm also supportive of comments made by Adrian and Barry (well, actually, "the other ADs").
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown