Thank you, Don, as you may have seen I have cleared by DISCUSS
Regards
-éric
On 31/08/2022, 14:48, "Don Fedyk" <dfe...@labn.net> wrote:
Hi Eric, I have posted the -10 version with the changes.
Thanks
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 12:57 AM
To: Don Fedyk <dfe...@labn.net>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-ip...@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org;
ipsec@ietf.org; kivi...@iki.fi
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-08:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Don,
Thank you for your email. Indeed, IETF drafts must use the documentation
prefixes and the new ones fit this rule ;-)
I am clearing my DISCUSS as soon as a revised I-D is published.
Regards
-éric
On 30/08/2022, 23:19, "Don Fedyk" <dfe...@labn.net> wrote:
Hi Eric
I have addressed your comments in my local copy and can post an update.
But I have a question. If you can check my understanding of the ipv6 from
RFC5952.
I have adjusted the IPv6 prefixes in the example to this:
<i:local-prefix>2001:db8:1::/48</i:local-prefix>
<i:remote-prefix>2001:db8:2::/48</i:remote-prefix>
The reason we use 2001:db8 is the prefix reserved for documentation RFC
3849. I was told in another draft not to use any other prefix. We use it in in
a configuration example to show our YANG works for Ipv6. I want 2 distinct
prefixes out the reserved prefix for this example. I had been sloppy with the
ones before the syntax was ignoring my attempt to refine the prefix space -
oops. I have tested these two addresses and I believe they are correct now.
Does this address your all your concerns?
I addressed your other points too See Don> below
Thanks
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:59 AM
To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-ip...@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org;
ipsec@ietf.org; kivi...@iki.fi; kivi...@iki.fi
Subject: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-08:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-08: 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/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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-08
CC @evyncke
Thank you for the work put into this document.
Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (very easy to address ;-)
), some
non-blocking COMMENT points (also very easy to fix), and some nits.
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
## DISCUSS
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
## COMMENTS
### Useless BCP 14 template ?
>Don I have removed this.
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.
I have fixed this.
## 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
