Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: 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-virtual-eth-segment/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments * It's not clear to me why this isn't just Informational. ### S3.3 * I get that this functionality is highly desirable, but is there some loss of interoperability among vendor equipment if it's not present? In other words, why is this a MUST as opposed to SHOULD? Seems like the alternative is that the switching among neighbor EVCs is definitely less efficient, but could nevertheless be made to work. ### S3.4 * These don't seem like "requirements" to me, just service descriptions. ### S3.5 * R5a does not seem like a requirement. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
