Hi Mirja > Given this document updates the normative behaviour of RFC 4761, I would > have expected to see some discussion about interoperability. Is the > behaviour as specified in RFC 4761 not widely deployed/implemented or > would it be possible to add some sentences about interoperability which > already deployed devices?
There are no interop considerations since this is new add-on behavior to cause PW to come whereas earlier the PW would not even come up. Regards Ravi > -----Original Message----- > From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 8:13 AM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-fl...@ietf.org; Mach Chen > <mach.c...@huawei.com>; bess-cha...@ietf.org; mach.c...@huawei.com; > bess@ietf.org > Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control- > flags-07: (with COMMENT) > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-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 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss- > 2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6ArkE4n20mNZQF6JxrMYwJyAGBWWjzhSIC2O3- > fXPV4&m=sRYoRhlmH7BG89gXNxxxppiwdiP1flSwEpo9K-EXMV0&s=kp- > Yisx5GTzgoz49kcReFJc4zVl-a8FCsHWwPIvCXUc&e= > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Dbgp-2Dvpls-2Dcontrol- > 2Dflags_&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6ArkE4n20mNZQF6JxrMYwJyAGBWWjzhSIC2O3- > fXPV4&m=sRYoRhlmH7BG89gXNxxxppiwdiP1flSwEpo9K- > EXMV0&s=JbGb4ouK0vh5A38h3j65nEWXj9o9L1YR9WKIGs40QYs&e= > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Given this document updates the normative behaviour of RFC 4761, I would > have expected to see some discussion about interoperability. Is the > behaviour as specified in RFC 4761 not widely deployed/implemented or > would it be possible to add some sentences about interoperability which > already deployed devices? > > One minor editorial request: > - Please expand PE on first occurrence. > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
