Christopher Inacio has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-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/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-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the quick update, I'll remove my discuss. I believe there could be slightly more clarity between the possibility of sending 0s as an identifier vs. not advertising anything because the router doesn't know the remote ID. But as written, I believe this is implementable. ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Thanks to Brian W. for the SECDIR review. Thanks to the authors for a clear (especially for the non-BGP audience) and concise draft. I also support Med's comment about the diagram in section 5 and would change his comment to say that the field should be labeled `reserved` with a statement as to how it should be transmitted (e.g. all zeros). _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
