Thank you for reviewing, Ralf. We’ll leave the current normative language then. If anyone else has strong opinions about it, we can discuss it.
Jorge From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 6:29 PM To: int-...@ietf.org <int-...@ietf.org> Cc: last-c...@ietf.org <last-c...@ietf.org>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags....@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags....@ietf.org> Subject: [bess] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05 Reviewer: Ralf Weber Review result: Ready Moin! I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ The draft does a very good job explaining the motivation, definition and use of the extended community flags with good and applicable examples. I personally would have used stronger (MUST) language for the R and O bits set to 0 on the IPv4->MAC transmission (3.1 sub point 2), but as these are optional anyway and must be ignored by the receiver it really makes no difference. So long -Ralf _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess