Thanks Tommy. So why would, e.g., BBF or OASIS be using PvDs? Sorry if this is obvious.
Alissa > On Jan 22, 2020, at 12:02 PM, Tommy Pauly <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alissa, > > Thanks very much for the review! I'm keeping pending changes available here, > to be published after the telechat: > https://github.com/IPv6-mPvD/mpvd-ietf-drafts/pull/25 > > I've updated the URN reference to specify the correct URL; that was due to my > errors in filling out the RFC markdown correctly! I've also updated the text > that makes the reference to be clearer in intent: > > If a set of PvD Additional Information keys > are defined by an organization that has a Formal URN Namespace {{URN}}, > the URN namespace SHOULD be used rather than the "vendor-*" format. > > The unnecessary MAY has been removed, and the sentence now reads: > > If the HTTP status of > the answer is between 200 and 299, inclusive, the response is expected to > be a single JSON object. > > I've also changed "privacy address" to "temporary address" as suggested. > > Thanks, > Tommy > >> On Jan 21, 2020, at 8:22 AM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-10: 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-intarea-provisioning-domains/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> This is a nit that should be easy to resolve but I'm confused by it, so I'm >> flagging it here. The reference for [URN] in Section 10.2 says '[URN] "URN >> Namespaces", n.d..,' which seems like an error. Given the way [URN] is used >> in >> 4.3, I'm not sure I understand why organizations with formal URN namespaces >> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1> >> would be expected to be using PvDs, if that is what the document intends to >> convey. In any event, at a minimum the reference needs to be fixed. >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> = Section 4.1 = >> >> "If the HTTP >> status of the answer is between 200 and 299, inclusive, the host MAY >> get a file containing a single JSON object." >> >> This seems like a misuse of normative MAY, as the behavior is determined by >> the >> sending server, not the host. >> >> = Section 7 = >> >> s/IPv6 Privacy Address/IPv6 temporary address/ >> (to align with RFC 7721 terminology) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
