Subject: [alto] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-21: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 16:55:57 -0800

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-21: 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-alto-unified-props-new/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[S4.2, nit]

* s/relatively to/relative to/, I think

[S4.3, nit]

* s/be be/be/

[S4.4.2, comment]

* I think the last sentence of the paragraph might be trying to say
  "may or may not inherit the property P...", because the inheritance
  rules for the property lowercase-must be defined?  Also: lowercase must?

[S6.1.2.2, comment]

* I gather there is no value to allowing link-local scope identifiers to
  appear here.  The current text does not support such a thing, but perhaps
  consider whether or not to explicitly note that "%25", "%eth0" are
  invalid.  Maybe it doesn't need an explicit mention, though.

[S6.1.3, question]

* Can this "undef" behavior be used to explicitly undefine an inherited
  property?

  For example, can "v4" be replaced with some "null" indicator in Figure 1
  such that "ipv4:192.0.2.0/32" in Figure 2 becomes "(not defined)"?

  If there is no such mechanism, should there be?