John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-10: Yes
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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this document. I confined myself to reviewing the diff versus RFC 9092. I have just one minor question and an even-more-minor nit. The question: In RFC 9092 you have, Any particular inetnum: object MUST have, at most, one geofeed reference, whether a remarks: or a proper geofeed: attribute when it is implemented. If there is more than one, all are ignored. In this document, you have liberalized from "all are ignored" and now allow them to coexist: Any particular inetnum: object SHOULD have, at most, one geofeed reference, whether a remarks: or a proper geofeed: attribute when it is implemented. A geofeed: attribute is preferred, of course, if the RIR supports it. If there is more than one type of attribute in the intetnum: object, the geofeed: attribute SHOULD be used. As far as I'm concerned, this is just fine and indeed an improvement, who doesn't like coexistence after all? But I wonder what changed that made it OK? (I think we might have debated this a bit when 9092 was approved, but I'm too lazy to go back and check...) The nit: 192.0.2.0/12 (in Section 3) isn’t what I consider a well-formed prefix, since the third octet has a set bit but isn’t under the mask. I would’ve said 192.0.0.0/12. (Or better still 192.0/12, but that form seems to be disfavored.) _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
