[bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 24 October 2018 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707E0128D68; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track@ietf.org, bess-chairs@ietf.org, stephane.litkowski@orange.com, bess@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.87.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154041494845.6871.5752369796279130064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:02:28 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/BvVT7DXefPMUC5jWQ4_3S3nAL7U>
Subject: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:02:29 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for the work on this!

*** Substantive Comments ***

I support Mirja's DISCUSS.

- There is an IPR disclosure with possible royalties. The shepherd report says
there were no WG objections. How was the disclosure communicated? For example,
was the WG reminded of the disclosure at WGLC?

*** Editorial Comments ***

- Part way through the section, starting with "We also introduce a new notion,
the "match for tracking":", there is a section of text that has a significantly
different tone from the rest of the draft. It switches more of a lecture style,
then switches back. I suggest an edit pass to keep a consistent tone.  (I know
this is a question of style, and I will not press it further if people prefer
not to change it.)

- 2 paragraphs starting with "For a given C-flow..."
Why is this indented?