John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-regext-rfc7484bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the useful and easy to follow spec. I have a few questions and comments below, I hope some of them are helpful. 1. In §5 you write, The longest match is done the same way as for routing: I might prefer “… same way as for packet forwarding“. It isn’t a big deal, though. 2. In §5.1 you write, The latter is chosen by the client given the longest match. I suggest “because it is” instead of “given“. (Similar in §5.2) 3. In §5.3 you write, The array always contains two AS numbers represented in decimal format Don’t you mean, “each array element always contains…“? Also, it appears what it really contains is two ASNs *separated by a hyphen*. 4. Again with respect to §5.3, is there no need for most-specific match semantics for ASNs? I’m imagining that presented with the choices of a larger or smaller range to match a given query, the smallest matching range would be used. E.g., given a query of 65501 and two entries, one for 65500-65535 and another for 65501-65501, the latter would be chosen. No? 5. In §6 you mention a “fully referenced URL”. Do you mean “fully-qualified “? _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
