Hello Prasad, Thanks for you message and the -07, which, indeed, addresses all my blocking DISCUSS concerns.
About my non-blocking issue with section 12 (mtrace), I was indeed not clear about my concern: 1. The use of BCP14 "MUST" is probably incorrect here as uppercase BCP14 terms are mainly for interoperability (which is not the case here), so, use of "must" or "should" is probably better 2. The reader is left without any information whether the current version of mtrace works The above comment is non-blocking, therefore, I will shortly clear my blocking DISCUSS ballot. Regards, -éric From: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 11 September 2026 at 12:11 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thank you, Eric, for your review comments. Kindly see replies inline with GVP1>. I have posted -07 which takes care of all comments agreed to below. Thanks Prasad -----Original Message----- From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2026 06:47 PM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis-06: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-lisp-rfc6831bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis-06 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. As I am far from being a multicast expert, I must write that I was unable to do a deep review of the document. Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Please note that Dave Thaler is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request) and you may want to consider this int-dir review as well when it will be available (no need to wait for it though): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6831bis/reviewrequest/24904/ GVP1> Thank you for the information I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues. ## DISCUSS (blocking) As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise. ### Obsoleted References As noted by the id-nitsv3 tool, the references RFC 3376 and RFC 3810 have been obsoleted. Should the reference section be updated ? GVP1> Agreed, replaced both references with the latest RFCs. ### Section 4 `they use IGMP` humm what about IPv6 MLD ? Please also use "IGMP/MLD" or a similar construct. Possibly applicable to other places in the draft. Section 7 is better to this respect. GVP1> Agreed, all mentions of IGMP now include MLD as well (IGMP/ MLD) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Abstract s/This document describes/This document *specifies*/ as it is a PS. GVP1> Fixed ### Section 1 s/This specification will address/This specification *addresses*/ ? GVP1> Fixed s/The approach proposed in this specification/The approach *of this specification* is/ ? GVP1> Fixed ### Section 12 Should it be clear that mtrace does not work in this setup ? GVP1> I revisited the text in the mtrace section and it reads reasonably well. Can you please clarify your comment ?
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
