Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-08 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document and for addressing my previous DISCUSS and COMMENT points (kept below for archiving only) Special thanks to Tero Kivinen for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus even if there is no justification for the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## Previous DISCUSS kept for archiving As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ### Section A.2 wrong prefix size ? ``` <i:local-prefix>2001:DB8::0/16</i:local-prefix> <i:remote-prefix>2001:DB8::1:0/16</i:remote-prefix> ``` Beside the lack of RFC 5952 (see my comment below), is it on purpose that both prefix with a /16 are identical ? The authors probably mean a different prefix size rather than /16. ## Previous COMMENTS kept for archiving ### Useless BCP 14 template ? As indicated by id-nits, the BCP 14 template is included but there is no normative 'upper case' language in the document. ### Section A.2 Please ensure to follow RFC 5952 to represent IPv6 addresses, i.e., lowercase and maximum 0 compression. ## NITS ### Spelling of yang s/yang/YANG/ at least in the abstract. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
