Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-25: No Objection
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-netmod-rfc8407bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I also share Gunter's initial reaction. While fine in this document, as it doesn't deal directly with the DNS, I would consider using a replacement token other than "AAAA" in future work, since this is a token that occurs somewhat frequently in IETF documents. (RFCAAAA is fine.) I was surprised by the change in 4.1 from RFC7950 to RFC6020, since the latter is older than the reference it replaces. However, the content looks correct in 6020, so I'm guessing this is deliberate and a fix to an error in RFC8407. I didn't find anything in the list of changes to reflect this, however; was there an erratum filed for this? In Section 5, the current practice is to list the IETF, rather than the IESG, as the change controller for our registrations. IANA isn't revisiting old registrations to make this change proactively, but while you're updating these, consider updating that field as well. This may be excessive, but just for clarity, does Appendix B need a note to the RFC Editor clarifying that the notes to the RFC Editor in the template are part of the template and should not be acted upon during the processing of this document? ===NITS FOLLOW=== Section 2, "Some of the templates defined in the document uses" => "Some of the templates defined in the document use" Section 3.5, "noted following [RFC8792]" could be parsed as placing the note after RFC8792; consider "indicated with a reference to [RFC8792]" Section 3.7, "define exclusively modules following" => "exclusively define modules that follow" Section 3.7.1, consider "have to use" => "require" x2 Section 3.7.1, "as normative references." => "as a normative reference." _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
