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

On 1/9/19, 1:28 PM, "Ben Campbell" <> wrote:

    Ben Campbell 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:
    Thanks for the work on this.
    I support Alissa's discuss.
    - The 2119/8174 keywords in this section are not used according to the RFC
    2119/RFC 8174 definitions. The RFCs talk about requirements on 
    to achieve interoperability. This speaks of requirements for the standards
    process. If the working group prefers to keep the use of keywords in this
    section, please add some additional text to the 2119/8174 boilerplate to
    explain the usage. (My other comments on the section assume that the 
    keywords will remain.)
    - Req 2:  "The solution MUST require no changes..."
    I suggest "MUST NOT require changes"

AS> Changed it to: "must not require any changes to ..."
    - Req 5: This doesn't seem to state a solution requirement; rather, it
    describes an action that VPN instances may take. Is the solution 
requirement to
    allow this behavior?
AS>   moved the 2nd part of the paragraph to the solution description under 
sections 3.2 and 4.2.


BESS mailing list

Reply via email to