Hi Paul, Many thanks for the review. See inline with [PC]. I've pushed an updated revision of the document (rev-24)
Cheers, Pablo -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: martes, 3 de enero de 2023 23:04 To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]>; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]> Subject: Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-23: (with COMMENT) Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-23: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- #1 I would change the order of the Contributions and Acknowledgements sections - it is sort of customary to say more important things earlier and "contributions" seem of higher importance than "acknowledgements" [PC] Changed, indeed. #2 Appendix A is really an "Implementation Status" section. Those sections are removed before publication as an RFC, but I see no note to the RFC editor that this section is to be removed. It should be removed for the same reasons the "Implementation Status" section is always removed. [PC] Added a note to RFC Editor to remove it. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
