Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-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/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-9092-update/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-10 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Michael Richardson for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *BUT* it lacks the justification of the intended status. Other thanks to Sheng Jiang, the Last Call Internet directorate reviewer: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-06-intdir-lc-jiang-2023-11-20/ (and I have seen interactions with the draft authors) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS (non-blocking) ## No IPv6 Examples I can only strongly regret, esp knowing the authors, that the examples are IPv4 only. Note: this issue prevents me to strongly support this document with a YES ballot. ## Section 3 Should the text be more normative than the plain text ``` The migration not only implies that the RIRs support the geofeed: attribute, but that all registrants have migrated any inetnum: ojects from remarks: to geofeed: attributes ``` _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
