Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04: Discuss
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-rfc5549revision/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- An easy one, but necessary IMHO: I'm confused by the IANA Considerations section. It looks like a verbatim copy from RFC 5549 which made the original registration for "Extended Next Hop Encoding", but this isn't actually a new registration. Shouldn't this therefore be something like the following? NEW: RFC 5549 added "Extended Next Hop Encoding" to the Capability Codes registry, which was created by [RFC5492]. IANA is requested to update the definition of that entry to refer instead to this document. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this document. It was easy to read even for people like me who don't get involved in routing too much. Thank you also for the shepherd writeup, which (unlike most lately) actually answered the question "Why is this the proper type of RFC?" _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
