Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-13: 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-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for discussing my discuss points. As wrote in the email I moved one clarification point to comment here. > 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? > >[Med] Not sure to get your point. We do have IEs that can exports kinds for both SAFE and UNSAFE. We used to have these in one single IEn but abandoned that design because it was suboptimal for an encoding compactness perspective. >I see, then it was not that clear that we are abandoned that desing in favour of encoding effiency. I think it would need some backgoround and rational on that to clarify the design choice. 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
