Orie Steele has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-mh-split-horizon/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10 CC @OR13 https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10.txt&submitcheck=True I support Roman's discuss. ## Comments ### Any type restrictions for IETF Review? ``` 721 New registrations in the "EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags" 722 registry will be made through the "IETF Review" procedure defined in 723 [RFC8126]. This registry is located in the "Border Gateway Protocol 724 (BGP) Extended Communities" registry. ``` RFC8126 notes that IETF Review states: ``` Unless otherwise specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (currently Standards Track, BCP, Informational, Experimental, or Historic). ``` In particular are informational and experimental type RFCs acceptable for this use case? _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
