Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15: 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-oam-characterization/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. I am really impressed by the quality of the definition, they are crystal clear. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Benoît Claise for the shepherd's *very detailed* write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. See also comments below. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues. ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Sherpherd's write-up The shepherd's write-up could be updated (OTOH the I-D has passed the shepherd step): - question 1: the note about pre-AD review should be updated to reflect what has been done - question 17 as RFC 7799 is now normative and is not in the downref registry ### Section 3.2 Should the "In-Data-Packet OAM" definition include some text about fragmented packets ? I.e., the OAM part is probably only in one fragment but we could also envision the OAM part repeated in all fragments. Should there be text around this ? The fragments could also follow a non-congruent path with the OAM fragment. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
