Subject: [regext] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 02:39:19 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Discuss

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-regext-rfc7484bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. Special congratulations for
having THREE implementations including one by the author.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point (trivial to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education). I am also sympathetic to Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS point.

Special thanks to Jasdip Singh for the shepherd's write-up including the
section about the WG consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

-- Section 5.2 --
The end of this section uses
"https://example.net/rdaprir2/ip/2001:0db8:1000::/48" (not RFC 5952 compatible
with the leading zero in front of "db8") as an example but this example seems
to contradict section 3.1.1 of RFC 9082.

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

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 1 --
No need to reply, but I really appreciate the author's use of the past tense in
"Per this document, IANA has created new registries" as opposed to similar
documents using the future tense. This document will age well ;-)

-- Section 3 --
"be retrieved via HTTP from locations specified by IANA" should this document
include the IANA location ?

Should a "real" date be used rather than "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ" ? I.e., the
syntax is specified later anyway so let's use a real example ? Later examples
in section 5 use "real" dates but not those in section 4 ;-)

-- Section 5.2 --
Should RFC 5952 also be specified as IPv6 representation in addition to RFC
4291 ?

-- Section 5.3 --
The IANA allocation for documentation ASN is rather short (6 ASNs !), so, I do
not mind too much that the example in this section uses private ASN space but
suggest anyway to limit the example to the documentation ASNs.