Subject: [bess] Terry Manderson's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Terry Manderson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:29:58 -0800

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-04: 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-extranet/

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

This is a comprehensive document. Kudos for writing it. However, is there
a WG rationale as to why this document is structured as it is? It struck
me when reading it there are 4  distinct books here on the various
aspects of extranet multicast VPNs. Being: Overview and overlap/ambiguity
w/prevention, Transmission models, Route distribution and communities
(where the IANA req for the 2 communities ,ight live), and Control Plane
concerns. Would that make it easier to implementers to comprehend? I
don't agree with the document shepherd in that "I found the document
(relatively) not hard to follow,  if you read it end-to-end" - for me it
made review a marathon. That said, I'm not the style police, so balloting
no objection.

I only saw one typo along the way ie VRFS instead of VRFs (page 9 second
para)