Subject: [bess] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 05:29:27 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-03: 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-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is Warren Kumari's OPS DIR review.
Summary: Ready, typo / grammar nits.

General:
I found this document to be very dense. At some point my brain started
dribbling out my ears and I largely gave up on trying to understand
the mechanism. This seems to be very much a niche application, and my
IP multicast and deep MPLS knowledge isn't up to the level of finding
issues with the logic.

Nits:

Abstract:
This document specifiess how
[O] specifiess
[P] specifies
[R] spelling

1: Introduction:
   With these two methods, all PEs of a particular VPN are separated
[O] all PEs
[P] all PEs (Provider Edge router)
[R] first use of acronym. The document does say it assumed familiarity
with terminology from [RFC5015], [RFC6513], [RFC6514], and [RFC7582],
but this is before that, and also expanding PE here will help people
understand if they want to continue reading...