Hi Greg,

I also saw that you replied to Carlos comments but I don’t think I saw a reply 
to Olivier’s initial mail. The link you’ve sent below seems also a link to one 
of Carlos replies.

See here for Olivier’s review:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07-tsvart-lc-bonaventure-2019-05-31/

Mirja



> On 10. Dec 2019, at 17:41, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mirja and Olivier,
> I apologize that some of Olivier's comments were not addressed. I've 
> responded to Olivier's detailed comments in 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/?q=Tsvart%20last%20call.. I 
> much appreciate your help in identifying the remaining questions and 
> comments. 
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:22 AM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker 
> <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> UPDATE: I didn't not see a reply to the original issue raised by the TSV-ART
> review (Thanks Olivier!). Please have a lock and provide a response. I don't
> think this raises discuss level but I think some clarifications would be good!
> 
> This document describes the use of BFD in VXLAN, however, it does not specify
> any new protocol elements or extension. Therefore I would expect such a
> document to be informational. The shepherd write-up doesn't give any 
> additional
> information about why this doc is PS.
> 
> 

Reply via email to