[bess] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-09: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-09: 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-fast-df-recovery/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-09

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Matthew Bocci for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Dave Thaler, the Internet directorate reviewer, and to Toerless
Eckert, the IoT directorate reviewer, please consider their reviews as if they
were mine:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-09-intdir-telechat-thaler-2024-08-13/
(I haven't read any public reaction of the authors)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-09-iotdir-telechat-eckert-2024-08-14/
(I haven't read any public reaction of the authors)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 1.3

PE, DF, HRW acronym are already expanded before ;-)

Suggest defining "redundancy group".

## Section 2

`add a skew (default = -10ms)` while this is valid, isn't it a little weird to
add a negative value ?

Should "service carving" be explained/defined ? Perhaps via a reference to
another RFC ?

## Section 2.1

`Era 0 is assumed as of the writing of this document` does not age well,
strongly suggesting to use "Era 0 is assumed in this specification".

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

s/Layer2/layer-2/
s/Layer 2/layer-2/ when used as an adjective.
"i.e." should always be followed by a comma.
s/insterted/inserted/ suggest using a spell checker ;-)