Hi Dirk, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Dirk Von Hugo via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > Envoyé : jeudi 25 avril 2024 17:05 > À : int-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh.all@xxxxxxxx; last- > call@xxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo- > v6eh-11 > > > Reviewer: Dirk Von Hugo > Review result: Ready > > Dear authors, intarea community, > as assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix- > tcpo-v6eh my 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > 2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fgroup%2Fintdir%2Fabout%2F&data=05%7C02%7 > Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C69088306607a4d9da34a08dc6539177 > b%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638496543080533917 > %7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB > TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EV%2BJhw3oV1e1uAlwz > Of4Jm%2FT%2Fatkbc91nf2rOKcbB3k%3D&reserved=0>. > > Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this > document as YES. > > The content of vers. 11 has improved and the additional IE > specifications as well the data type specification seem to me > useful and reasonable. I couldn't detect any minor nits. > > Regarding sect. 8.4 I am not sure whether the term 'mirror' > shouldn't be replaced by 'correspond' since only the protocol > numbers are represented by identical values while 'Label' and > 'Keyword' sometimes differ in this document and [IANA-Protocol]? [Med] I think the OLD is correct, especially that we provides how the mirroring is done. > So I would suggest to say: The "Label" corresponds to the > "keyword" of an EH as indicated in [IANA-Protocols], while the > "Protocol Number" mirrors the "Protocol Number" in [IANA-EH] and > [IANA-Protocols]. > > In addition I would like to clarify whether the term 'otherwise' > in sect. 8.4 means 'in all other cases when not a new code is > assigned to an IPv6 EH in [IANA-EH] but an existing code in the > registry is proposed to be modified'? [Med] All other cases not allowed by mirroring. The nominal mode won't involve a DE because mirroring will be sufficient to reflect (new, modification, deprecate, etc.). "otherwise" is a catchup to cover cases where modifications are local to the registry, not the parent one. For example, we do have two entries for fragments, while only one protocol number is used for fragments in the parent EH registry. Thanks. > > Thanks a lot and best regards > Dirk > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
