Subject: Re: [Idr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Keyur Patel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 22:36:56 +0000

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the detail review. One comment inlined #Keyur.

On 11/30/20, 9:35 AM, "Robert Wilton via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-20: No Objection

    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)

    Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps/

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hi,

    Thanks for this document.  I have no significant comments.

    Like Martin, I'm also somewhat confused by this text "Because RFC 8365 depends
    on RFC 5640, it is similarly obsoleted.", since it appears that RFC 8365 isn't
    really being formally obsoleted.

    >From a manageability perspective, are there any addition data nodes required to
    the BGP YANG data model, or augmentations to that model?  If so, are these
    being taken care of in another draft or subsumed into existing YANG modelling
    work?

#Keyur:   The attribute model structure will need to be augmented to support Tunnel Encap attribute. IMHO, it would be best to cover it in a separate draft.

Best Regards,
Keyur

    Regards,
    Rob