Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20: 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-bgp-sdwan-usage/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments ### S1 * Not entirely sure, but consider whether MEF 70.2 is better (or up-to-date) reference. (If you do change this reference, the Table 7 & 8 mentions need to be revised to Table 8 & 9, if I'm not mistaken). * I cannot seem to find mention of the IPv6 Flow Label in MEF 70.1, nor in MEF 70.2. I agree that it seems like it should be supported, but these tables seem to list requirements for support, and flow label seems to be absent. ### S6.3.2 * Is it necessary for IKE to be open if the requisite IPsec tunnel parameters can be shared via a BGP UPDATE message instead (vis. S4.3)? ## Nits ### S3.3 * The C3<->D2 connector reads "without encrypt over Untrusted". Should that be "without encryption"? ### S6.1.1 * "six one-directional" -> "six unidirectional"? ### S6.2.1 * "wAN ports" -> "WAN ports" ### S6.3.2 * "target Pes" -> "target PEs"? _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
