Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-13: 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-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Tommy Pauly for the TSVART review. I would like to discuss something that might not be completely technical but we should understand that aspect better. The sub-sections of section 4 defines udpXOptions and "reference" itself. My understanding is that it should reference to the draft where UDP options are defined. My understading can be wrong, but this is what is done for tcpOptions in RFC5102. So, I would like to discuss if we are referencing to the correct document or not. Another discussion - as this specification is based on draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options, that draft already defines number of Kind values for SAFE and UNSAFE options then why we are not defining IEs for them? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I also believe publication of this draft should have been waited to be publised along with or after draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options and I strongly suggest that. I also support Roman's comment that kind of echos why I have my previous comment on waitning on publication. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
