Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-taps-impl-16: 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-taps-impl/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Due to $dayjob work, I had no time to make a detailed review of yet another *neat* document. Please address Benson Muite's comments in his int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-taps-impl-16-intdir-telechat-muite-2023-09-05/ Thanks for having address Peter van Dijk's comments in his dns-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-taps-impl-16-dnsdir-telechat-van-dijk-2023-09-04/ In section 4, suggest to follow RFC 5952 to represent IPv6 address and use the usual 'browser' syntax for ports for IPv6: [2001:db8::1]:80. And in the same shot, why using 80 rather than 443 ? :-) In section 4.1.1.1, while I like using real-world examples, the usual way in IETF drafts is to use example.net or similar. I can only regret that most of the examples are using IPv4 over LTE while most mobile providers are IPv6-only nowadays... -éric _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
