Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-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/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-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Zhaohui Zhang and Stéphane Litkowski for addressing my previous DISCUSS points (even if they were 'discuss discuss', i.e., just to have a discussion). I have now cleared my previous DISCUSS ballot. # COMMENTS ## Abstract Should the abstract qualify the VPN with layer-3 (for MVPN) and layer-2 (for EVPN) ? ## Section 1 Should "SR" also be expanded ? Should RFC 8660 be a reference ? ## Section 2 `to transmit multicast traffic or BUM traffic` is somehow redundant as BUM includes multicast. ## Section 2.1 `At the present time` what about "In 2023, " ? ## Section 3.1 Please expand "EC" at first use (even if it can be guessed on the previous sentence). Why this section use `to be defined by IANA`, while section 5 lists the IANA-assigned values ? ## Section 3.2 This I-D uses 'outside the scope of this document' twice. I am curious: is there any work in BESS WG for this ? # NITS ## Section 1 s/Terminologies/Terminology/ s/Broadcast, Unknown *U*nicast, or Multicast (traffic)/Broadcast, Unknown *u*nicast, or Multicast (packet)/ s/sub set/subset/ _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
