Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits. Thank you to George Michaelson for his shepherd's write-up (including the WG consensus). Nice to have acknowledged him. Thank you Jean-Michel Combes for the INT-DIR Last Call review at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-08-intdir-lc-combes-2021-05-14/ The telechat INT-DIR review by Wassim Haddad also seconds a good opinion of this document. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 3 -- Having a standards track document relying on a 'remarks:' attribute looks really weird. Should it rather be informational ? NB: I understand that changing the RPSL syntax is mostly mission impossible. Should the case when both "remarks: Geofeed" and "geofeed" are present but differ be mentioned ? -- Section 4 -- What happens if the public key of the certificate is changed? Should the cert serial number be part of the signature? Or at least mention the obvious that the signature must be re-executed when the cert if changed (e.g., in section 5). -- Section 5 -- Is there any reason why the doc shepherd is not acknowledged ? == NITS == I find the use of the colon in "inetnum:" quite annoying and confusing. The use of quotes in the last § of section 3 is easier to read and parse -- Section 3 -- Do the examples really need to be in IPv4 ? ;-) -- Section 4 -- The use of "department" in "getting the department with the Hardware Security Module" is difficult to understand by non-English native readers (at least for me as I had to re-read it twice and guess the meaning). _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
