Subject: [radext] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 07:53:58 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-06: Yes

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes/

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

I think this is a very useful document, thank you for writing it.

Some comments:

In 3.4: ABNF needs an informative reference to RFC 5234.

In 3.16: there is a reference to Section 2.13. There is no such section
in the document. Did you mean 3.15?

In 4.1: does the "value" even need to be in the IANA registry,
considering that it never appears on the wire?

In 4.2: I would recommend that you instruct RFC Editor to remove the CSV
content, as it is not useful long term. So basically IANA can use the
data, then the section can be shortened.

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 10:20:25 +0200

> In 3.4: ABNF needs an informative reference to RFC 5234.

  Added.

> in the document. Did you mean 3.15?

  Yes, fixed.

> considering that it never appears on the wire?

  The "value" field isn't entirely needed.  However, we may need to use it later, and it's a good way to track / guarantee uniqueness in the data types.

> data, then the section can be shortened.

  Done.