Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-10: 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-lsr-isis-area-proxy/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 7 creates a registry whose policy is partly Expert Review, but doesn't give any particular guidance to the Designated Experts about what qualifying criteria might be. Are there any that should be included? I also suggest removing the names of proposed designated experts; that's appropriate for the shepherd writeup or an email and doesn't need to be in the document directly. The SHOULD in Section 4.2 is bare. When might an implementer or operator deviate from that advice? If there's no legitimate condition, maybe it should be a MUST, or if it really doesn't matter, a MAY. I actually have the same question about most of the 30+ SHOULDs in this document. I wasn't able to tell just from the text in many cases what damage to interoperability I might trigger if I deviate from the advice. And in the aggregate, as an implementer, I could do none of them and still claim I'm implementing this specification. Is that intentional? _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
