Dear Adam, Suresh, Mirja, Thanks. The authors now agree and will replace the duplicated pseudo code with a reference.
Adam: Thanks for catching the 193.51.100.0 IP address issue. We will replace both cases with a RFC 5737 address. Thanks again! Richard On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:46 PM Adam Roach via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: 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-alto-incr-update-sse/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for the work on this document. I strongly agree with Suresh’s first > point, regarding the restatement of the merge algorithm. I have one > additional > comment: > > Section 3.1.2.1: > > "ipv4" : [ "192.0.2.0/24", "198.51.100.0/25", > "193.51.100.0/25" ], > > The address "193.51.100.0" is from a block allocated to the University of > Paris. Please change it to an RFC 5737 documentation address. (This occurs > twice in the document) > > > > -- Richard
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
