John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-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/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-fast-df-recovery/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the updates! Looks good, modulo two comments, on the new text. ## COMMENTS ### Section 2.2, SHOULD validate implementations SHOULD validate the received SCT against an upper-bound Considering that the upper bound validation is important for the solution’s security (isn’t it?) I am wondering why this is not MUST. Indeed, just a few lines down we have, A PE which receives an SCT representing an offset larger than the local peering timer MUST discard the Service Carving Time and SHALL treat the DF Election at the peer as having occurred already, as above. This suggests that the quoted SHOULD is an oversight. ## NITS ### Section 2 “may to make” -> “may make” _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
