Thank you, Brian As you may have seen, I have referred to your review in my YES ballot for this document. Regards -éric On 15/12/2022, 13:58, "Int-dir on behalf of Brian Haberman via Datatracker" <int-dir-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:int-dir-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of noreply@xxxxxxxx <mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: Reviewer: Brian Haberman Review result: Ready with Issues I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>>. * Major issues : None * Minor issues : - Should these footprints be able to support the identification of individual hosts (e.g., IPv4address type versus IPv4cidr)? * Nits - If the answer to the minor issue is that endpoints (as defined in RFC 8006) can be identified in a footprint, I was a little confused by Section 2.2 discussing footprints that contain IP literals. It look me a bit to realize that this formulation does not support scoped IPv6 addresses (needed to trace back through RFC 8006 to RFC 3986 to find that information). It may be worthwhile to mention in the section description that scoped addresses are not supported in these types. - Section 2.2, 2nd paragraph needs a little rewording "listing IP addresses blocks" should either be "listing IP address blocks" or "listing IP subnets". _______________________________________________ Int-dir mailing list Int-dir@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Int-dir@xxxxxxxx> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir> -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
