Thanks, Joe for reading the I-D in detail!
Just to confirm: Are you suggesting to disallow empty fields and instead
always provide all fields explicitly?
I.e. enforcing notation in Section 3.1:
2001:db8::/32,56,1
192.0.2.0/24,32,1
And the following notation in Section 3.2:
192.0.2.0/24,24,4000
Cheers,
Oliver
On 6/10/25 3:22 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
Thanks, Benoît. I have read revision -05, and while I think it’s ready,
I do have one question and one nit. The nit is reconnaissance is
misspelled in section 9.
The question is, why allow for empty fields? Why not just make it
explicit for sub-prefixes and CGN end-sites in all cases? Seems like an
odd-ish special case.
Joe
*From: *Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
*Date: *Monday, June 9, 2025 at 16:42
*To: *opsawg <[email protected]>
*Subject: *[OPSAWG]WGLC for Publishing End-Site Prefix Lengths-05,
draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths
Dear all,
This draft received much feedback lately. Thank you.
Now that all authors, and community at large, had the chance to answer
the second IPR Poll (*) , we want to start a 2 weeks Working Group Last
Call, till Monday June 23rd.
Please provide your feedback. Is the document ready to progress?
(*) documented at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths/
history/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-
lengths/history/>
Regards, Joe and Benoit
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
