Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-06: 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-opsawg-rfc7125-update/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-06 Thank you for the work put into this document. ROA are indeed critical for the security and stability of the Internet. As usual for a -bis document, I reviewed only the diffs. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit. Special thanks to Joe Clarke for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS ## Misleading file name While not important at this stage, this document appears more like a 7125-bis than a 7125-update. ## Section 3 In which cases can the Exporter deviate from the SHOULD in `SHOULD use reduced-size encoding` ? # NITS ## Section 3 Suggest to either use actions (on receiving) or roles(i.e., Exporter) in all clauses in `this Information Element MUST be exported with a value of zero and MUST be ignored by the Collector` _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
