Hi Dino, Thanks – Benjamin over the weekend caught a couple of references which need to be updated via nits. I was just preparing an email to you with the fixes. If you can, include these tweaks also:
The IAB report (RFC4984) can be informative, no need to be normative. RFC6071 on IPSec roadmap, nits (and me) can’t find it in the document? It can removed. If for some reason want to keep, it can be informative. Nits has 5226 (IANA) as obsoleted, it should be updated to RFC8126 (which you have listed in the informative). Delete 5226, and move 8126 to the normative to replace 5226. You have RFC2119 in informative. Usually this is also normative. Also, RFC8174 needs to be now mentioned with RFC2119, add that in the document and also list in the normative. Thanks! Deborah From: lisp <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 1:12 PM To: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-23: (with COMMENT) Here is a diff for -24 that incorporates the changes below and Albert’s changes from Ben’s comments. I will submit today. Dino > On Feb 4, 2019, at 9:10 AM, Alvaro Retana > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=t_4mdnGN1QYvhWoBlVpBU33oceLF4fTMjo60JesHXBk&s=tF8-EnL-7ZdQg9NZuH0W9N3ZnCTcr7zMcN4YkPZuSfY&e= > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dlisp-2Drfc6833bis_&d=DwIFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=t_4mdnGN1QYvhWoBlVpBU33oceLF4fTMjo60JesHXBk&s=mPZHoYzYEp2s8Nnqi-_IExYI_3FkJo0QucA2w67CAok&e= > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > (1) s/rfc8113/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis > > (2) §5.1: "Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to > procedures in [RFC8126]." This sentence is out of place because it doesn't > specify which procedure...and the action is already specified in rfc8113bis > anyway. > > (3) s/Not assigned/Unassigned To match what the registry says. > > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lisp&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=t_4mdnGN1QYvhWoBlVpBU33oceLF4fTMjo60JesHXBk&s=wPj46XHTglwXmfHSGvsFJsRPtOsy0GZjzyaygXL8Bmg&e=
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
