Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support-05: Yes
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-trill-ecn-support/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Mirja about the status of L4S, but would go even farther - L4S is only one of the ECN experiments that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8311/ was intended to accommodate, so you might want to capture that in the appendix (basically saying "L4S is one example of the ways TRILL ECN handling may evolve", or something like that). Is If an RBridge supports ECN, for the two cases of an IP and a non-IPR inner packet, the egress behavior is as follows: really "non-IPR"? I'm guessing it should be "non-IP". s/significnat/significant/ _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
