Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: 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-mvpn-fast-failover/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - This document should expand acronyms on first use, particularly those in the Abstract. - Similarly, a couple of new paragraphs in Section 1 would be a useful boot camp for concepts like PEs, P-Multicast, C-Multicast, BFD, RT, etc. I spent some time in RFC 6513 and I'm still pretty unclear on these. - The last paragraph of S1 describes "protection for multicast services". Can you elaborate what this is protection from? The latency associated with tunnel failure? - In Section 3.1.6, please clarify if the length field of the TLV must be a multiple of 4 octets, or the entire TLV (including type and length) should be a multiple of 4. From context, I suspect the latter is true, but it could easily be misread otherwise. - Sec 5. I think you should delete the word "whether" _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
