Re: [alto] alto-oam-org

Hi, All:
I think we should use documentation address defined in section 3 of RFC5737 and replace "172.17.0.2 ", even though it gets slipped off form AD's eyes

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: alto [mailto:alto-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 tom petch
发送时间: 2023年10月27日 18:21
收件人: Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>
抄送: alto@ietf.org; draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang@ietf.org
主题: Re: [alto] alto-oam-org

From: Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>
Sent: 26 October 2023 12:46
To: tom petch
Cc: draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang@ietf.org; alto@ietf.org; Martin Duke
Subject: Re: alto-oam-org

Hi Tom,

Many thanks for following up on this document. Sorry to miss the issues.

We have fixed them in https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/pull/100 and will merge the changes to the next revision.

<tp>
Right, I will have  a look.

I note that the IESG review had produced two DISCUSS which will also produce changes so I am unsure of the process here.  You should not change things which the IESG would no longer approve of but I do not know what they are!  Then the use of a non-documentation address usually produces a response from Transport ADs which it has not on this occasion.  I think that the process is that this is now under the control of the responsible AD.

Tom Petch

Thanks,
Jensen

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:25 PM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com<mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com>> wrote:
I commented on this I-D 25sep23.

I got a response from the document shepherd which addressed two of my points but not the others.  I never got a response from an author.

I note that -15 still has issues that I raised.  Two I notice are:

RFC9274 is in the text but not in the I-D References
172.17.0.2 is in the examples seemingly as an IP address but I do not see this in the list of documentation addresses

HTH (I see that today is IESG review day!)

Tom Petch
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto