Subject: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 06:05:37 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: 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-isis-te-app/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document. I have only one nits in section
4.3: while I appreciate IPv6, there is no need to capitalize 'IPv6 Interface
Address' as "IPv4 interface address" is not capitalized ;-)

Special thanks to Acee, as the document shepherd he managed to represent the
conflicts within the WG.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

---

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 14:32:58 +0000

Eric -

Thanx for your review.

Please see inline.

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>

> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 6:06 AM

> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>

> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Acee

> Lindem (acee) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; Acee Lindem

> (acee) <[email-masked]>

> Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: (with

> COMMENT)

> Address' as "IPv4 interface address" is not capitalized ;-)

[Les:] You are correct in identifying this inconsistency - but note that the draft follows what is in https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-22-23-25-141-222-223 .

😊

It seems this discrepancy involves RFCs 5305 and 6119 as well.

   Les

> Special thanks to Acee, as the document shepherd he managed to represent

> the