Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-08: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The term "B-Component" is in the glossary, but isn't used in this document. Same with "CE" and "vES". I find the use of SHOULD around an administrative option to be peculiar. This is normally associated with interoperability requirements, but even setting that aside, let's say I decide to implement this in a way that the solution overall or the capability defined in Section 4 simply can't be enabled or disabled. Is the implementation still viable? _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
