Re: [bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08

[Parag Jain (paragj)]

Hi Joel,

We have addressed your comments in the new version of the darft 
(draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-09).

Thanks
Parag

From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker 
Date: Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:13 PM
To: gen-...@ietf.org 
Cc: bess@ietf.org , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping@ietf.org 
, last-c...@ietf.org 

Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2022-10-07
IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-18
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:
Should the RDs in section 6.1 and 6.2 use example IP addresses instead of
1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2?  (ID Nits called my attention to this, and I could not
decide if it was important.  So it is a nit here.)


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08

[Joel Halpern via Datatracker]

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2022-10-07
IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-18
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:
Should the RDs in section 6.1 and 6.2 use example IP addresses instead of
1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2?  (ID Nits called my attention to this, and I could not
decide if it was important.  So it is a nit here.)



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess