FYI Warren Kumari kindly pointed out the section in question was already removed in version 11. I’ve cleared my DISCUSS.
—John > On Jul 5, 2023, at 6:10 PM, John Scudder via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: Discuss > ... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > # John Scudder, RTG AD, comments for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11 > CC @jgscudder > > I found this document hard to review, for various reasons, so I don't really > consider this a complete review. In particular, I can't say with confidence > that it would be possible to build an interoperable implementation using this > spec. > > Despite that I have a number of comments I hope may be useful. Although I > haven't currently chosen to make them a DISCUSS, I hope you will consider > them, > especially the ones that relate to elements of procedure that are unclear. > > ## DISCUSS > > ### Section 9 > > I agree with Paul Wouters that Section 9 is unusual, to say the least. I am > going to dial up Paul's suggestion that the section be removed, to a strong > suggestion, and a request that if it's not removed, we have a conversation > about why it is needed and what value it adds to the finished specification. > > I would be curious to know why this section was added, to begin with, it's > unique in my experience. But it's optional to provide the background -- the > necessary part is to either remove it or explain why it's needed. > ... _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
