Hi Martin, I have addressed your comments in the following revision: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-25
Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 3:32 AM Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-24: 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-i2nsf-capability-data-model/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm and > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm are connected to a MUST in > Section 3.1 > and then listed as informative references. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Please update the RFC4960 reference in Sec 6 to > draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-18. > > For the ECN identity, it would be good to add RFC8311 as a reference as > well. > This is a standards-track RFC that clarifies the state of the ECT(1) bit. > > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
