Thanks, Benoît. I have read revision -05, and while I think it’s ready, I do have one question and one nit. The nit is reconnaissance is misspelled in section 9.
The question is, why allow for empty fields? Why not just make it explicit for sub-prefixes and CGN end-sites in all cases? Seems like an odd-ish special case. Joe From: Benoit Claise <[email protected]> Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 at 16:42 To: opsawg <[email protected]> Subject: [OPSAWG]WGLC for Publishing End-Site Prefix Lengths-05, draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths Dear all, This draft received much feedback lately. Thank you. Now that all authors, and community at large, had the chance to answer the second IPR Poll (*) , we want to start a 2 weeks Working Group Last Call, till Monday June 23rd. Please provide your feedback. Is the document ready to progress? (*) documented at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths/history/ Regards, Joe and Benoit _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
