> On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:08, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: 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-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I share Alvaro's thought that this should be experimental. (And if not > that, then a BCP). >
Nothing against it…. > -4 (and others) > The top level "MUST" follow these policies does not need the MUST. The > policies have their own 2119 keywords. As written, it implies things like > "MUST follow this SHOULD" which is a bit awkward. > you mean that we only keep 2119 keywords in the policies but on the the very fist sentence of the section, am I right? > 4, policy 2: > I gather the point is not so much that the registrations need to be > renewed as it is they need to expire if not renewed. That is, there's no > SHOULD level requirement for a registrant to renew it's registration > (maybe no longer needs the registration.) > > You mean we put the first should as lower case (non 2119 keyword) ciao Luigi _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
