Subject: [bmwg] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 02:31:11 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/

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

Hi,

I would like to thank the authors for the work that they have put into this
document, and also Sarah for the doc shepherd work that she did on improving
the text.

A few nits that I spotted:

Sometimes this doc refers to the just "MAC" and sometimes "MAC address".  The
prose would probably flow better if these were always "MAC address".

The requirements boilerplate text is section 1.1, doesn't look quite right, and
should probably be:

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

In section 1.2:
  IRB: Integrated routing and bridging interface
Normally, I would expect IRB to just be "Integrated Routing and Bridging". 
Given this term is only referenced once I would suggest changing the term and
moving the "interface" to where the term is used (if needed).

In Section 3.2, it refers to the "data plane", but that should be "control
plane".

Regards,
Rob