Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Zheng Zhang for his shepherd's write-up about the WG consensus. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric -- Section 3 -- It is a little unclear whether the first list of values are applicable to the 'route type' field. The reader can only guess when reading the pre-amble to the 2nd list. -- Section 5.1 -- The text in this section appears to also update RFC 7117: "The following bullet in Section 7.2.2.2 of [RFC7117]: ... s changed to the following when applied to EVPN:". Should this document also formally update RFC 7117 ? _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
