Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11
review-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11-opsdir-telechat-bradner-2021-10-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2021-10-19
Requested 2021-10-07
Authors Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Wen Lin , Jorge Rabadan , Keyur Patel , Ali Sajassi
I-D last updated 2021-10-11
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -11 by Sasha Vainshtein (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -09 by Gorry Fairhurst (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Scott O. Bradner (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -11 by Scott O. Bradner (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott O. Bradner
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/IhL7WvgkyJDVb-vZ2V19DKYKwA4
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 14)
Result Has nits
Completed 2021-10-11
review-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-11-opsdir-telechat-bradner-2021-10-11-00
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