Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-10: 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/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-opsawg-vpn-common/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As I am abroad on vacations, I had not time to review in depth this document, hence I am trusting the Internet directorate Last-Call review by Suresh: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-09-intdir-lc-krishnan-2021-08-30/ I was about to post similar comments as Erik Kline's ones about the lack of IPv6 terminology in the classification but Med's reply is OK. May I suggest though to clearly reference RFC 8519 (which should be updated) where this topic is discussed ? I also appreciate the reuse of the (incomplete) ACL YANG modules. Regards -éric _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
