hi med, thanks a million for the time reviewing
> * Abstract: add "This document obsoletes RFC 9092. sure; in my emacs buffer for -07. aside: is this sort of doc tracking in abstracts a fashion? > * Abstract: s/datafiles/data files doh. thanks. > * The changes vs 9092 lists "Geofeed file only UTF-8 CSV", but the > NEW abstract removes the CSV mentions that were called out in > the abstract of RFC9092. I would revert to the OLD wording in > 9092. my, admittedly poor, memory is that this happened because some other reviewer pushed in the other direction. but i think this would be a good change and is in my emacs buffer for -07. unless i hear otherwise, good change > * I would delete "Stress that authenticating geofeed data is > optional." as it was clear enough in 9092 that part is optional: > " An optional utterly awesome but slightly complex means for > authenticating geofeed data" this was put in very intentionally. we got a fair bit of ops reluctance to implement because folk whined that the authentication was too high a hill to climb. to quote a proponent "This is probably the main push back I get from people procrastinating [about] adoption." so, unless you feel strongly, i suggest no harm in the redundancy of leaving it in. > * Inappropriate use of normative language in an example in Section > 4: s/ this MUST be discarded because 192.0.2.0/24 is within the > more/ this must be discarded because 192.0.2.0/24 is within the > more uh, discarding is not optional, but rather an 'absolute requirement' [2119]. are we off here? if you feel strongly, whack me again. > * Not sure I would keep the last para starting with "There is > open-source code to traverse ..." in Section 4. This is can be > moved to an appendix of to Section 8. hmmm. this is not describing an implementation (sec 8) of geofeed objects, but a *use* of them. it's a bit of a selling point, ease of use. i am open to argument either way. clue bat please. again, deep thanks for reviewing. good reviews are not easy to get these days. randy _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
