Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-03: 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-pta-flags/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2: * Some of the MUST and MUST NOT requirements are stated on the message itself without stating the sender side rules. e.g. The Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags Extended Community MUST NOT be carried by a given BGP UPDATE message unless the following conditions both hold: It would be far more useful to state this as a sender rule e.g. The sender of a given BGP UPDATE message MUST NOT include an Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags Extended Community unless the following conditions both hold: * The following text seems to be redundant as there is a receiver rule that verifies exactly this. What exactly is the intent of this text and who is expected to adhere to/enforce it? If a given BGP UPDATE message is carrying a PMSI Tunnel attribute, but is not carrying an Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags Extended Community, then the Extension flag in the PMSI Tunnel attribute MUST be clear. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
