thanks
I do understand its complex but I would hope that the language can be reworked
to make it more likley
that an operator will get it right when trying to set up
I would not remove ether backward compatibility information but, as above, see
if the language can be simplified
maybe more of
Hi Saumya
Pls see inline.
From: "Dikshit, Saumya"
Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3:22 PM
To: "Parag Jain (paragj)" ,
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org"
, "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
Hi Parag,
Thanks
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your review and comments/suggestions.
Yes I will change the SHOULD to MUST as you pointed out.
As for the complexity, unfortunately due to the nature of the tunnel
segmentation (if different tunnel technology/instantiation is needed in
different regions) the procedures
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
> From: BESS on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
>
> Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:42 AM
> To: "bess@ietf.org"
> Cc: "draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-...@ietf.org"
>
> Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
> draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].
>
Reviewer: Brian Trammell
Review result: Ready with Issues
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and
