Thank you for reviewing.
We agreed on "updating 7432" in this document. We'll publish revision 08 soon 
after we resolve all the comments and discuss suggestions.


-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Brungard <>
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 10:18 PM
To: The IESG <>
Cc: "" 
<>, Stephane Litkowski 
<>, "" <>, 
"" <>, 
"" <>
Subject: Deborah Brungard's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: (with COMMENT)
Resent-From: <>
Resent-To: <>, <>, 
<>, <>, <>, 
Resent-Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 10:18 PM

    Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: 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
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    I can be swayed either way on the update discussion. I usually prefer to be
    conservative with using "update" so the reader of the original RFC does not
    have to parse many updates to understand what is applicable when
    implementing the original RFC. While others view it as applying to the
    new RFC and its relationship with the original. What's important (to me)
    is to clearly describe the update in the abstract for the reader to decide
    to read or not.

BESS mailing list

Reply via email to