Subject: [Sidrops] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 02:04:21 -0800

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-09: 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-sidrops-6486bis/

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

Thanks for the efforts on this specification. It was a good read.

After reading the shepherd's writeup I was expecting an update to 6486 but the
document actually obsoletes 6486. Something happened between when the shepherd
writeup was written and when this doc went for publication, not captured. Not a
big deal I guess, would have been better to get this captured.

Nits:

   Section 4.2.1 : "The issuer MUST ensure that the value of this field is more
   recent any previously-generated Manifest", missing "than" ?

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:16:21 +0100

Dear Zaheduzzaman Sarker,

Thank you for the review.

You are right that something happened: after shepherd write-up during
IETF Last-Call the observation was made that the document should
obsolete 6486 as it is a complete replacement. See the emails
before/after this message https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/_Ys3mNuBs4AIDEi7aT4CkRj94ic/
for more context about the change.

>    recent any previously-generated Manifest", missing "than" ?

This nit was addressed through
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/EYxcUtZLF7go2UBnOoOXqwn6bRY/

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:23:00 +0000

Thanks for the pointer and fix. Great to see IETF last call making things better.

//Zahed

> On 3 Feb 2022, at 16:16, Job Snijders <[email-masked]> wrote:
>