[bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 09 January 2019 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@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 7074C130FE9; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:28:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, bess-chairs@ietf.org, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, bess@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154706930344.4846.8863021546657846056.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 13:28:23 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/fOpxkEgeJc4h7CG9y8HvhogYFXk>
Subject: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 09 Jan 2019 21:28:24 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: 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.

I support Alissa's discuss.

- The 2119/8174 keywords in this section are not used according to the RFC
2119/RFC 8174 definitions. The RFCs talk about requirements on implementations
to achieve interoperability. This speaks of requirements for the standards
process. If the working group prefers to keep the use of keywords in this
section, please add some additional text to the 2119/8174 boilerplate to
explain the usage. (My other comments on the section assume that the normative
keywords will remain.)

- Req 2:  "The solution MUST require no changes..."
I suggest "MUST NOT require changes"

- Req 5: This doesn't seem to state a solution requirement; rather, it
describes an action that VPN instances may take. Is the solution requirement to
allow this behavior?