Mike, We are in the process of re-organizing and reworking drafts based on other reviews. I hope it improves the readability of the document.
Thanks, Rishabh. On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 2:00 PM Mike Bishop via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-15: No Record > > 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-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This draft is very difficult to approach for anyone who isn't a domain > expert. > It uses a lot of domain-specific terminology even before you get to the > list of > RFCs whose terminology the reader is expected to be familiar with. That > paragraph points to certain RFCs for "terms like" a list of items, > suggesting > that there might be other referenced terms in any given document with no > pointer here. That makes it difficult for the reader to take an unfamiliar > term > and look it up. > > I would encourage the authors to rework the introduction to contain a > simple > problem statement, an overview of how the existing technologies currently > handle it, and what this document defines to improve the situation. Some > diagrams might also be helpful in articulating the framework. I would > suggest > that this also include a thorough terminology section that cites RFCs > and/or > defines terms as appropriate for the reader attempting to consume this > document. > > In the Introduction, there's no reference cited for "P2MP Ingress > Replication". > Searching online for that phrase finds this draft as the primary hit. I > assume > that's intended to point to Section 6.4.5 of RFC 6513? > > Throughout, the draft is inconsistent about using "a SR" or "an SR" -- > which is > correct turns on whether "SR" is pronounced "source routing" or "ess arr". > Please pick one. > > For the moment, I'm intentionally balloting "No Record," because I'd like > the > authors to have this feedback now. It's going to take me some time to read > this > in more depth and update my ballot position. > > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
