Subject: [trill] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:24:19 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-11: 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-trill-centralized-replication/

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

No TSV concerns from me, but I was interested in the MUST/SHOULD mismatch that
Joseph Salowey mentioned in his review of -10. I didn't see a change about that
in -11.

I'm assuming the right thing will happen after the holidays, so no Discuss :-)
...

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 20:39:06 -0500

Hi Spencer,

> draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-11: No Objection

It looks like there were two cases of a "SHOULD" that needed to be
changed to a "MUST", one in the Abstract and one near the end of
Section 1, the Introduction. Should (must?) be easy to fix.

> I'm assuming the right thing will happen after the holidays, so no Discuss :-)

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]