Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-24: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm and draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm are connected to a MUST in Section 3.1 and then listed as informative references. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please update the RFC4960 reference in Sec 6 to draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-18. For the ECN identity, it would be good to add RFC8311 as a reference as well. This is a standards-track RFC that clarifies the state of the ECT(1) bit. _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
