Hi Mirja
> Given this document updates the normative behaviour of RFC 4761, I would
> have expected to see some discussion about interoperability. Is the
> behaviour as specified in RFC 4761 not widely deployed/implemented or
> would it be possible to add some sentences about interoperability which
> already deployed devices?
There are no interop considerations since this is new add-on behavior to cause
PW to come whereas earlier the PW would not even come up.
Regards
Ravi
> -Original Message-
> From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 8:13 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-fl...@ietf.org; Mach Chen
> ; bess-cha...@ietf.org; mach.c...@huawei.com;
> bess@ietf.org
> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-
> flags-07: (with COMMENT)
>
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-07: 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-
> 2Dcriteria.html=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=6ArkE4n20mNZQF6JxrMYwJyAGBWWjzhSIC2O3-
> fXPV4=sRYoRhlmH7BG89gXNxxxppiwdiP1flSwEpo9K-EXMV0=kp-
> Yisx5GTzgoz49kcReFJc4zVl-a8FCsHWwPIvCXUc=
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Dbgp-2Dvpls-2Dcontrol-
> 2Dflags_=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=6ArkE4n20mNZQF6JxrMYwJyAGBWWjzhSIC2O3-
> fXPV4=sRYoRhlmH7BG89gXNxxxppiwdiP1flSwEpo9K-
> EXMV0=JbGb4ouK0vh5A38h3j65nEWXj9o9L1YR9WKIGs40QYs=
>
>
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> Given this document updates the normative behaviour of RFC 4761, I would
> have expected to see some discussion about interoperability. Is the
> behaviour as specified in RFC 4761 not widely deployed/implemented or
> would it be possible to add some sentences about interoperability which
> already deployed devices?
>
> One minor editorial request:
> - Please expand PE on first occurrence.
>
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
