Hi Adam, > On Sep 26, 2018, at 10:46 PM, Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote: > > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: 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-acl-model/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks to everyone who contributed their time and knowledge to this document. > I > have two minor comments. > > Throughout the data module, the terms "ace" and "ACE" are used > interchangeably. > It would probably be good to rationalize these (I would suggest "ACE”).
I went through the draft. The only places where the term “ace” is used is to reference the node ‘ace’ in the model. Where it is not referencing the node, the model uses “ACE”. Hope that clarifies. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §4.3 and 4.4: > > These examples use IPv4 addresses exclusively. Please update to use IPv6 or a > mix of IPv4 and IPv6. See > https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ > for additional information. Section 4.3 has two examples, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6. Thanks. Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected] _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
