Hi, Alia, On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Spencer, > > I think that the "may not work properly" means that the packet would be > dropped > by the local PE. The looping issue would happen if the TTL weren't > decremented > and that language is being removed. > So, that's two different issues? It might be be great to call them out separately, if so ... Spencer > Regards, > Alia > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Spencer Dawkins < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: 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-virtual-subnet/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I support Alia's Discuss. I see that there's proposed text to resolve >> that position. >> >> I will remain a No-Objection if that proposed text is adopted, but I >> would be more comfortable if the proposed text was more specific than >> "may not work properly" - is there anything else that can go wrong, >> besides unbounded looping? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BESS mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >> > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
