Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below 
marked with "AS>".

On 1/7/19, 9:30 AM, "Alvaro Retana" <> wrote:

    Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: 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:
    It would be very nice to have references to (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS in the
    introduction.  I think that all of these references should be Normative 
    they are "documents that must be read to understand or implement the
    technology".  It looks like the references are made later in the text...but 
    couple are listed as only Informative.

AS> All the EVPN and VPLS RFCs are listed in the normative section. RFC7041 
which is about PBB-VPLS was in informative section which is now move to 
    I don't think that the use of rfc2119 language in §2 (Requirements) is
    appropriate because (1) there isn't any Normative action from the 
    and (2) these are resolved later in this document.

AS> change them to lower case.
    I agree with others (Genart, Opsdir) in that this document reads more like a
    BCP or even an Informational document.

AS> I added a sentence to the abstract and introduction to explain why this 
drat is intended to be "standard".
    [nit] s/(PBB-VPLS) solutions (PBB-)VPLS./(PBB-VPLS) solutions.

AS> done.

BESS mailing list

Reply via email to