Mahesh Jethanandani 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1.2, paragraph 25 > This document extends the EVPN multihoming procedures to allow > operators to select the preferred Split Horizon method for a given > NVO tunnel according to their specific requirements. The choice > between Local Bias and ESI Label Split Horizon is now allowed for > tunnel encapsulations that support both methods, and this selection > is advertised along with the EVPN A-D per ES route. IP tunnels that > do not support both methods, such as VXLAN or NVGRE, will continue to > adhere to the procedures specified in [RFC8365]. How is the operator able to make the selection of Split Horizon? Is there a YANG model? Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term "his"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their" * Term "native"; alternatives might be "built-in", "fundamental", "ingrained", "intrinsic", "original" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. "RED", paragraph 1 > 0 0 --> Default SHT. Backwards compatible with [RFC8365] and > [RFC7432] This line in an HTML rendition of the draft appears as truncated. Please reformat. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
