Re: [bess] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with COMMENT)

On May 7, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > It's > not unreasonable to expect that: > > 1. Acronyms be expanded on first use. All the more so since the RFC Editor will insist on this anyway. --John ___ BESS mailing list

Re: [bess] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with COMMENT)

On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > >> is there any reason for the authirs *not* to make things easier for your >> readers by saying: " >> This document describes how EVPN [RFC7432] can be ..."? >> > > ​That clearly is a good edit suggestion for all alone

Re: [bess] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with COMMENT)

On Sun, May 7, 2017, 7:35 PM Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hi Warren, > > In the draft you have reviewed EVPN term is use interchangeably with term > [RFC7432] which in turn is also already listed and defined in the Normative > References section (2nd from the top). > Yes, and I

[bess] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-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