Subject: [bess] Deborah Brungard's Yes on draft-ietf-bess-ir-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Deborah Brungard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 04:38:05 -0700

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-ir-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-bess-ir/

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

Considering the discussion among the IESG, I wanted to give a strong
endorsement for this document. Yes, the document is "complex" to
read as it updates RFC6513/6514, and both of these documents required
the reader to have normatively understood many other RFCs. Yes, the
subject is complex for a non-subject expert reader. This document
provides the "additional details" to implement complex capabilities
(e.g. multi-vendor interoperability make before break procedures) these
vendors (and the WG as noted by the Acknowledgements and list
discussion) have found lacked in clarity in the original RFCs. I thank
the authors and WG for taking the time to write this RFC as this
additional work on implementation aspects after an RFC is
rubber-stamped is critical.

On many of the questions raised, a good discussion can be found
on the list, especially Thomas's and Eric's thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/AydZrp0Lf9fUohKrgVHG9kzbycY