[bess] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 21 February 2018 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@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 916321205D3; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:39:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, bess-chairs@ietf.org, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, bess@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151925279058.21121.17600189959739696478.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:39:50 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/_b-f3o9bWYAM36717-sUrzOhPVA>
Subject: [bess] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 21 Feb 2018 22:39:51 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03: 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 document. I have two very small editorial nits:

> Abstract
>  This draft defines protocol extensions required to synchronize flow
>  label states among PEs when using the BGP-based signaling procedures.

Please expand "PE".


>  A PE MAY support the configuration of the flow label (T and R bits)
>  on a per-service (e.g.  VPLS VFI) basis.

Please add a comma after "e.g."