Ballot for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle

Yes

Gunter Van de Velde

No Objection

Andy Newton
Christopher Inacio
Deb Cooley
Éric Vyncke
Jim Guichard
Mahesh Jethanandani
Roman Danyliw
Tommy Jensen

Recuse

Ketan Talaulikar

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Gunter Van de Velde
Yes
Andy Newton
No Objection
Christopher Inacio
No Objection
Comment (2026-08-05) Sent for earlier
* Please expand NLRI on its first use.

The mechanism defined in this draft seems fine, but I don't understand why one would want to use it.  Administratively, one creates a LAG to bundle a set of interfaces together to behave logically as a single interface and then sets policy on how the aggregate will behave for network operation.  The goal of that is to localize that behavior in the LAG definition and have a slightly different resource available at a logical level.  This draft bypasses the localized control of the aggregate group but still leaves it in place - effectively managing the individual links in two separate ways in an uncoordinated fashion.  

Wouldn't it simply be more straight forward to remove the LAG definition?
Deb Cooley
No Objection
Comment (2026-08-03 for -07) Sent
This draft is well outside my expertise area: 

Section 8, para 2:  While RFC9325 is still relevant, there is an update that makes it more modern and forward looking.  These can be referenced most easily by referencing BCP 195 (which included RFC 9325, and RFC 9852).  If this is a 'bridge too far', then I recommend adding RFC 9852 in addition to RFC 9325 (it deprecates TLS 1.2).  TLS 1.3 will be migrated to be secure against a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer, and TLS 1.2 is frozen in its current state.
Éric Vyncke
(was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2026-07-31 for -07) Sent
Thanks for the work done and for addressing my previous blocking DISCUSS concerns (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BKBcb4aK2j9adqMRpxbYFk9acGw/ for archive)
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
(was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2026-08-06) Sent
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENTs.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2026-07-30 for -06) Not sent
Thank you to Vijay Gurbani for the GENART review.
Tommy Jensen
No Objection
Comment (2026-08-05) Sent
Minor note that requires no response: I think it would be cleaner if the updates to 9085 and 9086 were expressed explicitly as what the new text is rather than the existing text which describes the new effect of the updated RFCs. Should you revisit these areas of the text, I recommend doing this, even in-line (no need to go into full blocks of OLD TEXT: ... NEW TEXT: ...).
Ketan Talaulikar
Recuse
Comment (2026-07-19 for -06) Not sent
I am a co-author on this document.