[bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-11: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-pref-df/



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

Section 2 defines "BD" but it's not used anywhere in this document.  Nor are
"NDF", "BDF", "vES", "ISID", or "MAC-VRF".

The sole "SHOULD" in Section 4.1 leaves me with two questions: (1) What happens
if I don't do this?  (2) The sentence itself appears to parse like "You SHOULD
do this, but you don't actually have to" which seems like an abuse of BCP 14. 
I think this is better if you just change "SHOULD" to "should", and drop the
BCP 14 references altogether.