[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-13: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-13: 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-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label/



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

Thanks for the quick turnaround. The update looks good, I’ll clear my discuss.
I have a couple new comments/questions regarding the “Context-Specific Label
Space ID Type” registry.

- Is there any existing group of registries you could suggest IANA organize the
new registry under? At first glance, it appears as though it might fit in the
“Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities” group, there are a bunch
of other (sub)type registries there. If you agree that’s the place for it, add
that suggestion in the IANA section.

- Probably add another line to the table, indicating values 1-255 are
unassigned. Unless you want to reserve value 255, sometimes people like to do
that, for various reasons. It doesn’t really seem necessary in this case, but
on the other hand, it may come under the heading of “can’t hurt, might help“.
In that case, it would be two new lines: “1-254, unassigned; 255, reserved”.