Hi Paul, Thanks for reviewing. Revision 16 changes the title to “Summary”.
Thanks. Jorge From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2026 at 2:48 PM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-15: (with COMMENT) CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-15: 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-ipvpn-interworking/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Just a minor non-blocking nit: It is a little weird to have a Conclusion Section in an RFC. It is not that the document presented an discussion of arguments and reached a conclusion. Perhaps what is meant is Summary ?
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
