From: Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zh...@gmail.com> 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. <tp> 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 <ie...@btconnect.com<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
