Hi Scott, Please see zzh> below. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 10:18 AM To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: bess@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Reviewer: Scott Bradner Review result: Has Nits Thanks for the updates since the last version I reviewed (09) - The new version is somewhat easier to follow but I still find it a hard read - no so hard as to suggest holding the document for a rewrite but (imo) not as clear as it could be My last review objected to a SHOULD being used in section 5.3.1 and that was replaced by a MUST, which I think is a better choice but you have added a new SHOULD at the end of the same section and I have the same objection to the use of SHOULD in this case - it is my opinion that a MUST is better than a SHOULD unless you explain the exceptions to the SHOULD - so I think you need to change the text to use MUST or you need to add text that explains when one would not do what the text says to do zzh> Hmm ... I did not add a new SHOULD - they were there before. Zzh> The designated ASBR election is only needed when there are legacy PEs, and the DF Election EC is only needed when the election is needed. So, if it is known that there are no legacy PEs present, the DF Election EC is not needed and received DF Election EC will just be ignored. That's why I used SHOULD, and the ignore action is implied. Zzh> I'll take your advice and simply change to MUST. Zzh> Thanks! Zzh> Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
