Thank you very much for reviewing. Please see in-line with [JORGE].


-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
Date: Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:27 AM
To: The IESG <>
Cc: "" 
<>, Stephane Litkowski 
<>, "" <>, 
"" <>, 
"" <>
Subject: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: (with COMMENT)
Resent-From: <>
Resent-To: <>, <>, 
<>, <>, <>, 
Resent-Date: Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:27 AM

    Suresh Krishnan 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:
    Given the drawbacks this document mentions regarding the default DF election
    algorithm defined in RFC7432, I also think it would be better for this 
    to update RFC7432 so that implementers are aware that there are better
    alternatives out there.
[JORGE] Sounds good. We'll do in the next revision.
    * Section 3.2:
    Who actually advertises Type 0 in the DF Alg field given that the legacy
    RFC7432 implementations do not use this extended community at all?
[JORGE] I agree that there is no need to advertise type 0 if there are no 
capabilities to signal. However, you may well advertise type 0 along with the 
AC-DF bit in the extended community.

BESS mailing list

Reply via email to