Subject: [bess] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:25:12 -0800

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-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 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-nsh-bgp-control-plane/

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

Thanks for the work on this document. I have only two comments, both
minor and editorial.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please expand the following acronyms upon first use, in the abstract, and in
the title; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for
guidance.

 - NSH
 - SFC
 - AFI
 - SAFI
 - AF
 - NLRI
 - L3VPN
 - EVPN

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§8, §8.1, §8.2, §8.3, §8.4, §8.5, §8.6, §8.7, §8.7, §8.9.1, §8.9.2, §8.9.3,
§8.9.4, §8.9.1, §8.9.2:

All of the examples in these sections use IPv4 addresses exclusively. Please
update them to use IPv6 exclusively, or to use a mix of IPv4 and IPv6. See
https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ for further details.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:32:44 -0000

Hi Adam,

Thanks for this.

> the title; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for

Agreed.

> https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ for further details.

<wry grin>
Would the IESG like to do a statement on that so that they don't rely on the IAB to direct the content of IETF documents?

I'm in general agreement with you on the use of IPv6 in documents.

I don't want to mix and match through the current examples, because there is a flow of continuity between them. But adding some IPv6 examples would be very fine.

We have been seeking someone to supply some worked examples: sadly not so many people seem keen to help. (Let's not waste time wondering why.)

That leaves us a little stranded, so if you have suggestions or volunteers, please put them in touch.

Best,
Adrian