[bess] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11: (with COMMENT)

Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 20 October 2021 18:00 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates@ietf.org, bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, Zheng Zhang <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>, zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <163475283383.14058.1666437768546000575@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 11:00:34 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/JE91wBXhw7wK7wsLULVumcYPVIQ>
Subject: [bess] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11: (with COMMENT)

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for working on this document. Thanks to Gorry Fairhurst for his TSVART
review and to the authors for addressing the review comments.

Here, I strongly support Lars's discuss as I also have hard time understanding
the relation towards the updates to RFC 7432 and to RFC 7117 and RFC 7524. The
explanation given in the section 2 is not good enough.

Most of my confusions arose from the way updates/changes/clarifications done to
RFC 7117 and RFC 7524 without describing their relation to RFC 7432 in this
document. Hence to resolve this my suggestion will be to -

* list the updates made to RFC 7432
* describe the relation among RFC 7432, RFC7117, RFC 7524 in the respective
sections where the changes/updates/clarifications are done. Section 5.2 is a
good example for this.

I hope this helps.

[bess] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draf… Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker