> Le 1 déc. 2021 à 05:39, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> a > écrit : > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: 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/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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work put into this document. Special congratulations for > having THREE implementations including one by the author. > > Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point (trivial to address), some > non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for > my own education). I am also sympathetic to Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS point. > > Special thanks to Jasdip Singh for the shepherd's write-up including the > section about the WG consensus. > > I hope that this helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > -- Section 5.2 -- > The end of this section uses > "https://example.net/rdaprir2/ip/2001:0db8:1000::/48"; (not RFC 5952 compatible > with the leading zero in front of "db8") as an example but this example seems > to contradict section 3.1.1 of RFC 9082.
<MB>Done in -05</MB> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > == COMMENTS == > > -- Section 1 -- > No need to reply, but I really appreciate the author's use of the past tense > in > "Per this document, IANA has created new registries" as opposed to similar > documents using the future tense. This document will age well ;-) > <MB>no action</MB> > -- Section 3 -- > "be retrieved via HTTP from locations specified by IANA" should this document > include the IANA location ? > <MB>To my knowledge, it has been the policy of IANA/IETF to not publish the location URL of the registries in RFCs</MB> > Should a "real" date be used rather than "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ" ? I.e., the > syntax is specified later anyway so let's use a real example ? Later examples > in section 5 use "real" dates but not those in section 4 ;-) <MB>Done in -05</MB> > > -- Section 5.2 -- > Should RFC 5952 also be specified as IPv6 representation in addition to RFC > 4291 ? <MB>Done in -05</MB> > -- Section 5.3 -- > The IANA allocation for documentation ASN is rather short (6 ASNs !), so, I do > not mind too much that the example in this section uses private ASN space but > suggest anyway to limit the example to the documentation ASNs. <MB>Private ASN space enables the document to provide various cases. Documentation ASN space is too short to properly show the various cases</MB> THanks, Regards, Marc.
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
