Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12: 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-opsawg-pcaplinktype/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Joe Clarke for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus _but it lacks_ the justification of the intended status, see below. Other thanks to Carlos Bernardos, the Internet directorate reviewer (at OPSAWG WG chair's request), please consider this int-dir last call review as I was unable to find any reply by the authors even if -12 appears to address most (if not all) of Carlos' comments: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-05-intdir-lc-bernardos-2024-08-22/ I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Why informational ? The shepherd write-up is rather silent on the intended status of informational as it seems to me that proposed standard would be a better fit. Moreover, draft-ietf-opsawg-pcapng has, rightfully, a normative reference to a previous version (draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype) of this I-D, i.e., this creates a downref. ### Abstract An abstract should be short of course, but this one is a little too short: why not adding reference (expansion at least) for PCAP. It also uses the word "describes", which is correct for an informational I-D, even if it actually "specifies" the value, i.e., why not 'proposed standard' ? ### Section 2 As I spotted only one use of BCP14 (moreover in an informational I-D) in section 3.2 (IANA considerations), please remove this section. See also https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ about the use of BCP14 terms in IANA considerations. ### Section 3.2.2 Per section 4.2 of RFC 8126, there is no designated expert for a FCFS registry, i.e., remove this section or change the registry policy to 'expert review'. As IANA has reviewed -11 and found it OK, then I am not raising a DISCUSS on this point. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
