Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-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/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-bess-evpn-overlay/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Both the Abstract and Introduction contain text like this: This specification is also applicable to GENEVE encapsulation; however, some incremental work is required which will be covered in a separate document. and the Introduction references draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve-00.txt, which looks like an individual -00 draft. I wonder if it would be better to drop the promise from this document, and make the relationship clear in whatever version of draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve is published. I'm fine with the working group publishing this draft with the promise included, but wanted to ask while we're reviewing it, rather than later. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
