Hi Murray, new version uploaded where NV and NVO removed since they were not used. Please let me know if you have any comment.
Mankamana On 11/22/21 2:14 AM, slitkows.i...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Murray, > >> There's an IPR disclosure on this document. In the shepherd writeup, where >> a summary of the discussion of it is requested, it simply says "There are 3 >> IPRs disclosed". I'd like to hear that summary, or at least confirm the >> discussion was had and there were no concerns as a result. > > The WG didn't raised any concern about the IPR disclosed for this document. > > Brgds, > > Stephane > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: jeudi 28 octobre 2021 08:34 > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org; bess-cha...@ietf.org; > bess@ietf.org; slitkows.i...@gmail.com > Subject: Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: Discuss > > 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-igmp-mld-proxy/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > There's an IPR disclosure on this document. In the shepherd writeup, where a > summary of the discussion of it is requested, it simply says "There are 3 > IPRs disclosed". I'd like to hear that summary, or at least confirm the > discussion was had and there were no concerns as a result. > > The IANA Considerations section needs some work: > > (0) I suggest making each of the actions you want to take (there are four) > into their own subsections of this section. > > (1) "EVPN Extended Community sub-types registry" should be "EVPN Extended > Community Sub-Types sub-registry of the BGP Extended Communities registry", > which makes it easier to find. > > (2) "Multicast Flags Extended Community" appears to be a new registry you're > creating in the final action here. BCP 26, for a First Come First Served > registry, advises that a change controller column be included. Are you > intentionally omitting this here? Or if this is referring to an existing > registry, I wasn't able to find it. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 3 defines "NV" and "NVO", but these terms appear nowhere in the > document. > > Every SHOULD in this document, other than the ones that talk about logging, > left me wondering why an implementer might decide not to follow that advice. > Since SHOULD presents a choice, I suggest including some guidance about why > it's a SHOULD, i.e., when one might decide not to do what it says and still > expect to interoperate. Or should some of these really be MUSTs? > > > > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
