Re: [alto] alto-oam-org
Hi, All: I think we should use documentation address defined in section 3 of RFC5737 and replace "172.17.0.2 ", even though it gets slipped off form AD's eyes -Qin -邮件原件- 发件人: alto [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 tom petch 发送时间: 2023年10月27日 18:21 收件人: Jensen Zhang 抄送: alto@ietf.org; draft-ietf-alto-oam-y...@ietf.org 主题: Re: [alto] alto-oam-org From: Jensen Zhang Sent: 26 October 2023 12:46 To: tom petch Cc: draft-ietf-alto-oam-y...@ietf.org; alto@ietf.org; Martin Duke Subject: Re: alto-oam-org Hi Tom, Many thanks for following up on this document. Sorry to miss the issues. We have fixed them in https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/pull/100 and will merge the changes to the next revision. Right, I will have a look. I note that the IESG review had produced two DISCUSS which will also produce changes so I am unsure of the process here. You should not change things which the IESG would no longer approve of but I do not know what they are! Then the use of a non-documentation address usually produces a response from Transport ADs which it has not on this occasion. I think that the process is that this is now under the control of the responsible AD. Tom Petch Thanks, Jensen On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:25 PM tom petch mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote: I commented on this I-D 25sep23. I got a response from the document shepherd which addressed two of my points but not the others. I never got a response from an author. I note that -15 still has issues that I raised. Two I notice are: RFC9274 is in the text but not in the I-D References 172.17.0.2 is in the examples seemingly as an IP address but I do not see this in the list of documentation addresses HTH (I see that today is IESG review day!) Tom Petch ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
Re: [alto] alto-oam-org
From: Jensen Zhang Sent: 26 October 2023 12:46 To: tom petch Cc: draft-ietf-alto-oam-y...@ietf.org; alto@ietf.org; Martin Duke Subject: Re: alto-oam-org Hi Tom, Many thanks for following up on this document. Sorry to miss the issues. We have fixed them in https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/pull/100 and will merge the changes to the next revision. Right, I will have a look. I note that the IESG review had produced two DISCUSS which will also produce changes so I am unsure of the process here. You should not change things which the IESG would no longer approve of but I do not know what they are! Then the use of a non-documentation address usually produces a response from Transport ADs which it has not on this occasion. I think that the process is that this is now under the control of the responsible AD. Tom Petch Thanks, Jensen On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:25 PM tom petch mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote: I commented on this I-D 25sep23. I got a response from the document shepherd which addressed two of my points but not the others. I never got a response from an author. I note that -15 still has issues that I raised. Two I notice are: RFC9274 is in the text but not in the I-D References 172.17.0.2 is in the examples seemingly as an IP address but I do not see this in the list of documentation addresses HTH (I see that today is IESG review day!) Tom Petch ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
Re: [alto] alto-oam-org
Hi all, Normally, idnits flags when addresses are not documentation ones but fails to find the one reported by Tom [1]. Thanks Tom. Cheers, Med [1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-15.txt&submissioncheck=True De : alto De la part de Jensen Zhang Envoyé : jeudi 26 octobre 2023 13:47 À : tom petch Cc : alto@ietf.org; draft-ietf-alto-oam-y...@ietf.org Objet : Re: [alto] alto-oam-org Hi Tom, Many thanks for following up on this document. Sorry to miss the issues. We have fixed them in https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/pull/100 and will merge the changes to the next revision. Thanks, Jensen On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:25 PM tom petch mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote: I commented on this I-D 25sep23. I got a response from the document shepherd which addressed two of my points but not the others. I never got a response from an author. I note that -15 still has issues that I raised. Two I notice are: RFC9274 is in the text but not in the I-D References 172.17.0.2 is in the examples seemingly as an IP address but I do not see this in the list of documentation addresses HTH (I see that today is IESG review day!) Tom Petch Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
Re: [alto] alto-oam-org
Hi Tom, Many thanks for following up on this document. Sorry to miss the issues. We have fixed them in https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/pull/100 and will merge the changes to the next revision. Thanks, Jensen On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:25 PM tom petch wrote: > I commented on this I-D 25sep23. > > I got a response from the document shepherd which addressed two of my > points but not the others. I never got a response from an author. > > I note that -15 still has issues that I raised. Two I notice are: > > RFC9274 is in the text but not in the I-D References > 172.17.0.2 is in the examples seemingly as an IP address but I do not see > this in the list of documentation addresses > > HTH (I see that today is IESG review day!) > > Tom Petch ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
[alto] alto-oam-org
I commented on this I-D 25sep23. I got a response from the document shepherd which addressed two of my points but not the others. I never got a response from an author. I note that -15 still has issues that I raised. Two I notice are: RFC9274 is in the text but not in the I-D References 172.17.0.2 is in the examples seemingly as an IP address but I do not see this in the list of documentation addresses HTH (I see that today is IESG review day!) Tom Petch ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
