Hi,
The HRW DF election draft defines a new extended community, the DF Election
Extended Community
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-03#section-7),
which contains a DF election type registry. Why don’t we define a value for
AC-based DF election and have the PEs
Hi Gunter,
Thanks for the feedback.
About this:
I was wondering why this document, even though being backward compatible with
RFC7432, is Informational track, and not standard track.
I just sent an email providing the initial reasoning discussed among the
authors. If we still think Standards
Hi Stephane,
Thank you for your review.
Please see in-line and let me know what you think.
Thanks.
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com"
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:35 AM
To:
Hi again,
There is one point that I have missed.
Section 4 uses an old version of the requirement language. Please use the
latest one:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in
I support progress and publish as RFC.
The document is well written and resolves with a reasonable approach logical
failures or human errors, that would otherwise result in significant service
problems.
I was wondering why this document, eventhough being backward compatible with
RFC7432, is
Hi,
As shepherd of this document, please find below my comments.
IMO, this is a very useful proposal. The document is quite easy to understand
with a good illustrated example.
Overall comments:
- I would encourage to have an acronym section containing all abbreviations and
the associated