Hi Roman, thank you for the review and the comment. Please find the proposed update below under the GIM>> tag.
Regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:38 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: 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-mvpn-fast-failover/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you to Daniel Migault for the SECDIR review > > I support Ben and Alvaro's DISCUSS positions. > > One editorial nit from Section 3.1.6: > > An implementation that does not recognize > or is configured not to support this attribute MUST follow procedures > defined for optional transitive path attributes in Section 5 of > [RFC4271]. > > It seems odd to be specifying normative language for implementations that > do > not/will not understand this specification. I appreciate that this MUST is > coming from RFC4271. > GIM>> Indeed, sounds illogical. Would an updated text be acceptable: This document defines the format and ways of using a new BGP attribute called the "BFD Discriminator". It is an optional transitive BGP attribute. Thus it is expected that an implementation that does not recognize or is configured not to support this attribute follows procedures defined for optional transitive path attributes in Section 5 of [RFC4271].
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
