Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: 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-proxy-arp-nd/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to Barry's comments, I found that "BD" appears in the glossary twice, and "SLLA" appears in the glossary but nowhere else in the document. Are "Address Resolution" and "Large Data Center" formal terms? If not, they should be lowercase. Alluding to a lot of things Alvaro pointed out: Many of the SHOULDs in this document are bare, in that they give the implementer a choice but no guidance on how to make that choice. For instance: A Proxy-ARP/ND implementation SHOULD support static, dynamic and EVPN-learned entries. How would I decide whether I've got a use case that justifies not doing one of those, and what are the interoperability implications of that decision? I suggest reviewing these. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
