Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: 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-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Alvaro's DISCUSS, and add my own comments related to his first point: The first two SHOULDs in Section 3.1 would benefit from some guidance about when an implementer might opt to deviate from that advice. This occurs again Sections 3.3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, the top of Section 4 (two SHOULDs) and the bottom of Section 4 (two SHOULD NOTs). Given Section 6.3, I think RFC7981 should be a normative reference rather than an informative one. I think RFC4271 also needs to be normative since it's referenced by a SHOULD. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
