[bess] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-11: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-11: 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-pref-df/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-11

Thank you for the work put into this document. Please note that I was close to
ballot a DISCUSS based on my non-blocking COMMENT points, but as I am not an
expert in EPVN, I am trusting the responsible AD.

Please find below osome non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and several nits (please run
your I-D through a spell-checker).

Special thanks to Stéphane Litkowski for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status even if
using the old template.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS

## Abstract

Please fix the expansion of BUM as it is not `Broadcast, Unknown unicast and
Broadcast traffic (BUM)` ;-)

## Section 1.1

Please fix the expansion of BUM as it is not `Broadcast, Multicast and Unknown
unicast traffic (BUM)` ;-) I was amused to read two different wrong expansions
for BUM ;-)

I am sure that non SP will also use this technique, i.e., I wonder whether
s/Service Providers/Network Operators/ would be beneficial.

## Section 2

Rather than using "DP" in `DP - refers to the "Don't Preempt me"` should "DNP"
be more logical ?

## Section 3

Should RFC 8584 be formally updated as its reserved field is carved out ?

`The DP capability is supported by DF Algorithms Highest-Preference or
Lowest-Preference, and MAY be used with the default DF Algorithm or HRW
[RFC8584]` Is there any migration concern with the use of MAY ? I.e., part of
the participating routers will use the DP and the other part not => leading to
an inconsistent election result.

# NITS

s/tie-breakers/tiebreakers/
s/The existence of both provide/The existence of both provides/
s/achive/achieve/ ?
s/decribed/described/

'e.g.' is usually surrounded by ','