[bess] Orie Steele's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10: (with COMMENT)

[Orie Steele via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Orie Steele has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10: 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-mh-split-horizon/



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

# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10
CC @OR13

https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10.txt&submitcheck=True

I support Roman's discuss.

## Comments

### Any type restrictions for IETF Review?

```
721	   New registrations in the "EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags"
722	   registry will be made through the "IETF Review" procedure defined in
723	   [RFC8126].  This registry is located in the "Border Gateway Protocol
724	   (BGP) Extended Communities" registry.
```

RFC8126 notes that IETF Review states:

```
Unless otherwise specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (currently
Standards Track, BCP, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).
```

In particular are informational and experimental type RFCs acceptable for this use case?