Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12: 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-netmod-rfc6020bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Meta comment: Shouldn't this document obsolete RFC6060. There is no Obsoletes: tag in the draft Section 4.2.4: s/A reference a data tree node/A reference to a data tree node Section 9.4.7: It is not clear why the following refinement is illegal. Can you clarify? type my-base-str-type { // illegal length refinement length "1..999"; } IANA considerations: Not sure what is the correct method for doing this in -bis documents, but I would have expected a note that instructs IANA to switch references to RFC6020 in IANA registries over to this one. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
