Alexey,
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: 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/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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for a great document. Some minor comments:
3.8. IANA Considerations Section
In order to comply with IESG policy as set forth in
http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html, every Internet-Draft that
is submitted to the IESG for publication MUST contain an IANA
Considerations section. The requirements for this section vary
depending on what actions are required of the IANA. If there are no
IANA considerations applicable to the document, then the IANA
Considerations section stating that there are no actions is removed
by the RFC Editor before publication.
IANA's and RFC Editor opinion about empty IANA Considerations section has
changed over time (and might change again), so I would not make this statement.
I don't think this is necessarily the current policy. RFC Editor asks, but
doesn't enforce this. So I suggest changing "is removed" to "might be removed".
That makes sense.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] - I am pretty sure that some uses of this
document are normative, so you should move it to Normative References.
Well spot. This is required by the terminology section 2.4
Regards, Benoit
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
