Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I can be swayed either way on the update discussion. I usually prefer to be conservative with using "update" so the reader of the original RFC does not have to parse many updates to understand what is applicable when implementing the original RFC. While others view it as applying to the new RFC and its relationship with the original. What's important (to me) is to clearly describe the update in the abstract for the reader to decide to read or not. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess