Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS.
** Section 4, per “The figures in section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of [RFC8287] are replaced by the below figures in section 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 respectively”: -- none of the diagram in Section 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 are explicitly labeled as figures -- section 4.3 contains two “figures” (one is called a table in the text and the other has no designation). Which one of these is supposed to be a replacement for RFC8287 Section 5.3? ** Section 4.3. Assuming that the second figure is the replacement for RFC8287’s Section 5.3 figure, the length is still confusing to me. The figure in this draft appears to be a specific instance of the populated Sub-TLV. The existing figure in RFC8287 appears to be a generic depiction. The new figure doesn’t appear to be relevant (or presented incorrect information) if Adj Type = 1 and Protocol = 1 (for example). ** Section 4.3. Typo. s/Protocol =0/Protocol = 0/ ** Section 6. Recommend clarifying that there are no additional security considerations (not that there aren’t any). s/This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any security considerations/This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional security considerations/
Please use the BCP 14 boilerplate from RFC 8174 (the current Section 2 seems to be using the RFC 2119 text, without accounting for errata, and an extra RFC 8174 reference appended at the end).
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.
Good catch from the Gen-Art review, this needs to be fixed.