Ballot for draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 19 and is now closed.
Hi Italo, Aihua, Xufeng, Tarek, and Igor, Thank you for the effort put into this bis and specifically the meticulous work to call out all changes and their rationale. The reasoning for not following some of the RFC8407 guidance are well-explained. Likewise, explanations about why an IANA-maintained module is not used for PCE errors are reasonable. Thanks also to Sergio for the OPSDIR review. I trust the authors will follow-up. I reviewed this document several times in the past, so I only have nits that I will submit as PR for the authors convenience. The NMDA mention inside the modules (and also in the document) is useless. The new guidance is to include a justification only when there is major deviation. Cheers, Med
Thanks to Tero Kivinen for their secdir review. I agree with his assessment of the HUGE number of referenced RFCs. (16 references for 1 definition seems excessive)
Thanks for the discussion to address the major blocking points of my ballot: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/tMTDQbdBdXHTOA6OAstCohlMXro/ I was about to ballot a non-blocking ABSTAIN because the title itself is still somehow ambiguous IMHO, but I fear that an ABSTAIN would block the document as the IESG has rotated since the first ballot, hence my NoObjection.
Thanks to the authors for addressing my DISCUSS and most of my COMMENTS. I have noted two issues that I feel should be addressed, but I will let the AD decide how he wants to handle it.
I support Mahesh's DISCUSS position.
Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review . I support the DISCUSS point of Mahesh Jethanandani, also identified by the GENART review, to clarify the relationship of this model to MPLS.
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-19 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments * For anyone else looking to review a diff, this URL was a helpful starting place: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc8776&url2=draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-19&difftype=--html
I agree with the SecDir readability comments noted by Tero.