Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-09: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bigger stuff: I'll see Benjamin's DISCUSS (meaning I support it) and raise him the two seemingly normative references to [TUNNEL-ENCAP], which is also undefined. As someone not from the Routing Area, I found this a little hard to read because it becomes quite dense with acronyms in some places. Is Section 13 intended to remain in the final published version? Is it needed? In the Abstract, please expand all acronyms on first use in the abstract, per the I-D Guidelines. Lesser stuff: Thanks for the glossary in Section 1. I note that, although defined in the glossary here, the terms "DGW", "Ethernet A-D route", "GRE", "GW IP", "IPL", "ML", and "VXLAN" are not used anywhere else in this document. There are lots of places where a single hyphen is used to break up a sentence, such as to introduce an example. These should be em dashes, or commas, or maybe semicolons, but not simply hyphens. A few nits: Section 2: * "... all the inter-subnet forwarding are performed ..." -- s/are/is/ * "... connected to the same PE, wanted to communicate ..." -- remove the comma Section 3: * "A MAC-VRF can consists of one ..." -- either drop "can", or use "consist" _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
