Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-ir-05: Yes
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-ir/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Considering the discussion among the IESG, I wanted to give a strong endorsement for this document. Yes, the document is "complex" to read as it updates RFC6513/6514, and both of these documents required the reader to have normatively understood many other RFCs. Yes, the subject is complex for a non-subject expert reader. This document provides the "additional details" to implement complex capabilities (e.g. multi-vendor interoperability make before break procedures) these vendors (and the WG as noted by the Acknowledgements and list discussion) have found lacked in clarity in the original RFCs. I thank the authors and WG for taking the time to write this RFC as this additional work on implementation aspects after an RFC is rubber-stamped is critical. On many of the questions raised, a good discussion can be found on the list, especially Thomas's and Eric's thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/AydZrp0Lf9fUohKrgVHG9kzbycY _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
