Hi Barry Thanks for your input. Been addressed in -08. Regards Ravi
> -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] > Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 11:02 PM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-fl...@ietf.org; Mach Chen > <mach.c...@huawei.com>; bess@ietf.org > Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags- > 07: (with COMMENT) > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss- > 2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6ArkE4n20mNZQF6JxrMYwJyAGBWWjzhSIC2O3- > fXPV4&m=iYf8gbrFPSefanXbHRPp5582-Y- > dLzDlAcHBoscJ0Do&s=anFZ7mbROjHZMCc_pKrheWD0xYtMm- > z8Ihv0ZBTU_dE&e= > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Dbgp-2Dvpls-2Dcontrol- > 2Dflags_&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6ArkE4n20mNZQF6JxrMYwJyAGBWWjzhSIC2O3- > fXPV4&m=iYf8gbrFPSefanXbHRPp5582-Y- > dLzDlAcHBoscJ0Do&s=AvdGXE0aC9SvKnOrFh24zSPKqEvmZR27lIQTulUn05g& > e= > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
