Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-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://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-oam-req-frmwk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [ section 2.4 ] * Up to you if you want to include ICMPv6 [RFC4443] in the list of applicable mechanism. =) [ section 3.1.1.2+ ] * I can't tell what the mandatory to implement behaviour is. 3.1.1.2 says that implementations MUST support event-driven defect indication which can be categorized into two types. Both types say they SHOULD be supported. If the overall behaviour is a MUST, shouldn't one of these be MTI? Or is that not important and the point is that any implementation MUST choose at least one to support? _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
