[bess] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-15: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-15: 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-ipvpn-interworking/



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

** I support the DISCUSS position of Med Boucadair.

** Idnits reports:

-- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'MAY NOT' is not
     defined in RFC 2119.  If it is intended as a requirements expression, it
     should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119;
     otherwise it should not be all-uppercase.
…
     Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:

     b.  Route Target Extended Communities.  Route Targets MUST NOT be
     propagated and MUST be re-initialized when re-advertising the ISF route
     into a different domain.  The re-initialized Route Target value MAY or
     MAY NOT match the value used in the original route.