Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-07: 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-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- — Section 3.1 — but the PW MUST NOT be prevented from coming up due to this mismatch. So, the PW MUST still come up but not use control word in either direction. The second MUST seems wrong to me: the normative behaviour is already stated by the MUST NOT, but there could be other factors that legitimately prevent the PW from coming up, no? Likely, this should say, “So, the PW will still come up, ...” — Section 3.2 — If the PEs at both ends of the PW do not agree on the setting of the S-bit, the PW SHOULD NOT come up. Why SHOULD NOT? Why might it be allowed to come up anyway, and what would the consequences of that be (which would need to be understood in order to not obey the SHOULD NOT)? _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
