[bess] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: (with COMMENT)

[Deborah Brungard <[e-mail]>]

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework/



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

I can be swayed either way on the update discussion. I usually prefer to be
conservative with using "update" so the reader of the original RFC does not
have to parse many updates to understand what is applicable when
implementing the original RFC. While others view it as applying to the
new RFC and its relationship with the original. What's important (to me)
is to clearly describe the update in the abstract for the reader to decide
to read or not.