Hi Erik,
On 8/17/20, 7:32 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Erik,
On 8/16/20, 7:50 PM, "BESS on behalf of Erik Kline via Datatracker"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04: 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-rfc5549revision/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[ comments ]]
[ section 3 ]
* Perhaps "8-octet RD is set to zero" -> "8-octet RD set to zero"
[ section 4 ]
* Perhaps "for which there is already solution" ->
"for which there is already a solution"
* "from the onset" -> "from the outset", I think
I believe either is correct and I think "onset" is more common.
I guess "onset" usually implies the start of something unpleasant, which would
hopefully not be the case for supporting next-hops of both AFs __, so I would
agree with your suggested change. Or it could simply be changed to "from the
beginning" to avoid any confusion.
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-onset-and-vs-outset/
Thanks,
Acee
Thanks,
Acee
[ section 6.2 ]
* "IPV4" -> "IPv4"
[ section 6.3 ]
* "IPV4" -> "IPv4"
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
