Hi Warren, thank you for the review. I've updated the representation of IPv6 addresses to follow RFC 5952 and the reference to IPv4-mapped IPv4 loopback addresses range per recommendations from Adam Roach. Attached, please find the diff that highlights the updates made in the working version of the draft. As to the suggestion made by Jurgen in his first review, would changing the title of the section to Acronyms and Abbreviations make the scope of that section more clear?
Regards, Greg On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:39 AM Warren Kumari via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support Benjamin and Eric's DISCUSSES - I considered holding a DISCUSS > on the > "loopback address" terminology and formatting (which was also noted in the > excellent OpsDir review by Jürgen Schönwälder), but think that Eric can > carry > it. > > In addition, like Jurgen, I think it would be helpful to have pointers to > where > terms are defined - the "Terminology" section isn't really terminology, but > rather just an acronym expansion section. > > >
<<< text/html; charset="UTF-8"; name="Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09.txt - draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-10.txt.html": Unrecognized >>>
