Hi, Looking at the new version I think there might been some errors made with the attempt to address my Discuss.
So in Section 4.1: IANA Registry Reference: RFC TBD (this document) The registry indicated in this section was created by RFC3553, so I don't think the above line should have been changed. So the new section 4.3 do address the main part of my discuss. The updated meaning and reference for entry makes it clear the history for the future if anyone will consider to reuse this port. So my discuss is resolved, but please revert the change in Section 4.1. Cheers Magnus > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg <iesg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund via > Datatracker > Sent: den 11 juni 2020 15:55 > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: capport-cha...@ietf.org; captive-portals@ietf.org; draft-ietf-capport- > rfc7710...@ietf.org; m...@lowentropy.net > Subject: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: > (with DISCUSS) > > Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: Discuss > > 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-capport-rfc7710bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IANA Section: > > As this document is obsoleting RFC 7710 is the document that registered the > options for DHCPv6 and RA. Why isn't this document updating the > registrations to ensure that IANA has the current document as being owner > of the codepoints? > > In addition when it comes to BOOTP options code 160. What you have in this > document appear to potentially lead to another future assignment end up in > trouble? Wouldn't reserved be better status for this codepoint? > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
