Subject: [bess] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:00:05 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10: 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-evpn-overlay/

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

Both the Abstract and Introduction contain text like this:

   This specification is also applicable to GENEVE encapsulation;
   however, some incremental work is required which will be covered in a
   separate document.

and the Introduction references draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve-00.txt, which
looks like an individual -00 draft. I wonder if it would be better to drop the
promise from this document, and make the relationship clear in whatever version
of draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve is published.

I'm fine with the working group publishing this draft with the promise
included, but wanted to ask while we're reviewing it, rather than later.