Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-04: 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-mvpn-extranet/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a comprehensive document. Kudos for writing it. However, is there a WG rationale as to why this document is structured as it is? It struck me when reading it there are 4 distinct books here on the various aspects of extranet multicast VPNs. Being: Overview and overlap/ambiguity w/prevention, Transmission models, Route distribution and communities (where the IANA req for the 2 communities ,ight live), and Control Plane concerns. Would that make it easier to implementers to comprehend? I don't agree with the document shepherd in that "I found the document (relatively) not hard to follow, if you read it end-to-end" - for me it made review a marathon. That said, I'm not the style police, so balloting no objection. I only saw one typo along the way ie VRFS instead of VRFs (page 9 second para) _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
