Subject: [Idr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 02:02:15 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-20: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis/

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

I hope all routing documents are this easy to follow.  All I have are minor
nits:

Section 1:
* "... manually as well as automatically.  The latter by systems that ..." --
change ". The" to ", the", because the second half of this isn't a sentence by
itself.  Just join them.

Section 7.2:
The "TBD" here feels like it's dangling.  I realize it's dealt with in the IANA
considerations, which is Section 11.3, but I had to jump around to make sure. 
I imagine I'm more accustomed to an RFC Editor note or some such when I run
into these.  You might consider saying in Section 11.3 that this is the thing
described in Section 7.2, or vice versa.

Appendix A:
Should the copyright date be updated?

---

From: Christoph Loibl <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 10:03:05 +0200

Hi,

Thank you for the review. A new -22 is available that addresses the nits you pointed out.

> On 16.04.2020, at 11:02, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

<..>

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis/

<-- 
Tracked via issue #168: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/168
Commit mention: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/commit/b6e78d9748a8d15b58f90bf97cbb831ec1fe854b

Resolved as suggested.
-->

> described in Section 7.2, or vice versa.

<-- 
Tracked via issue #169: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/169

I tried a couple of options, and all of them will result in significantly more changes during final edit (since we need to remove those cross references again later) and were not very satisifying. Since it is only a single codepoint that needs to be assigned and TBD has only 3 mentions which seem very clear I avoided making any changes.
 
-->

> Should the copyright date be updated?

<-- 
Tracked via issue #170: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/170
Commit mention: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/commit/f11639d8e578cc160083a5c2ea28e439e7fec86e

Updated this and also updated the original file in the referenced github repo. 
-->

Cheers
Christoph

-- 
Christoph Loibl
[email-masked] | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at