> 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:
I didn’t see any comments. Do you mean run IDnits or all the comments below? Dino > > 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]> 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] > 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
