Hi Barry, Thanks for your review. See inline. On 1/26/15, 6:39 AM, "Barry Leiba" <barryle...@computer.org> wrote:
>Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-12: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > >The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I'll note that the RFC Editor will move Section 1.2 to the end. If >there's a reason you don't want that, you should let them know. That¹s fine. > >-- Section 10 -- > > This specification also creates a registry for OSPFv3 Auto- > Configuration (AC) LSA TLVs. This registry should be placed in the > existing OSPFv3 IANA registry, and new values can be allocated via > IETF Consensus or IESG Approval. > >The current term is "IETF Review" (not "IETF Consensus"), and you should >have a normative reference to RFC 5226 here. I will add this. > It would also be good to >say when IESG Approval is an appropriate alternative to IETF Review. I always interpreted this as either IETF Review or IESG Approval. Thanks, Acee > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
