Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: 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-vpls-seamless-integ/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work on this. I support Alissa's discuss. ยง2: - The 2119/8174 keywords in this section are not used according to the RFC 2119/RFC 8174 definitions. The RFCs talk about requirements on implementations to achieve interoperability. This speaks of requirements for the standards process. If the working group prefers to keep the use of keywords in this section, please add some additional text to the 2119/8174 boilerplate to explain the usage. (My other comments on the section assume that the normative keywords will remain.) - Req 2: "The solution MUST require no changes..." I suggest "MUST NOT require changes" - Req 5: This doesn't seem to state a solution requirement; rather, it describes an action that VPN instances may take. Is the solution requirement to allow this behavior? _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
