Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-12-18
Requested 2018-12-04
Authors Ali Sajassi, Samer Salam, Nick Regno, Jorge Rabadan
Draft last updated 2018-12-19
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Yingzhen Qu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Stephen Kent (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Pete Resnick
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05-genart-lc-resnick-2018-12-19
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2018-12-19


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-0
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2018-12-19
IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-18
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready with some nits, but one process issue/query.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

This document is intended for Proposed Standard. It doesn't have protocol as much as operational configuration information for integration. RFC 2026 section 5 says:

   The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
   standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.
   Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with
   the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
   computer communication across interconnected networks.  However,
   since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
   variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user
   service requires that the operators and administrators of the
   Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.

That sounds like what this document is doing. It also sounds like this document is unlike to advance to Internet Standard, as there's not the kind of iterative implementation that protocols go through. It's not a big deal either way, but this does seem better suited to a BCP.

Nits/editorial comments: 

Abstract: s/draft/document/g

Introduction: "Many Service Providers (SPs) who...". You don't use "SP" anywhere else in the document, and other places where you use the phrase it isn't capitalized. Suggest just saying "Many service providers who..."

§1, Definitions:

   (PBB-)VPLS: refers to both, PBB-VPLS and VPLS. As for EVPN, this
   abbreviation is used when the text applies to both technologies.

It says EVPN in the second sentence. I don't understand. Did you mean VPLS?

§2: The 4 "MUST"s and 1 "MAY" aren't requirements on the implementation; they're the requirements this document will satisfy. Seems like they shouldn't be capitalized.

§3.2, second bullet, 3.4.1, last paragraph, §4.2, second bullet, and §4.4.1, last paragraph: Why are the "must"s not capitalized?