Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt

[Francis Dupont <[e-mail]>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  Thanks for your review and good comments.
>  
>  Please see inline for my comment. Let me know if the draft can move on
>  or not after your review.

=> I am not a member of the IESG, I am just in a team reviewing drafts
in last call or before the IESG review (The whole idea of the gen-art
review team is explained in the FAQ). BTW my summary was "Ready" so
if there was no blocking comments during the last call the answer
should be yes (i.e., it can move on).

>  -----Original Message-----
>  I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>  Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>  
>  <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>  
>  Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>  you may receive.

=> I keep this as it still applies.

>   - 2.3 page 11: I can't understand the unnumbered in this statement:
>    "... Note
>     that the Action field can be set to 0x01 (Inclusive Range) only when
>     unnumbered link identifier is used."
>  
>  YOUNG>> I think the reason for this restriction is it would be hard to retr=
>  ieve the numbered interfaces from the range format (unless they are contigu=
>  ously numbered). On the other hand, the unnumbered interfaces (e.g., s/0, s=
>  /1, etc.) can be extracted from the range. For example, if the begin range =
>  were s/0 and the end range were s/4, the link set would be:=3D {s/0, s/1, s=
>  /2, s/3, s/4}.

=> according to the answer my problem is from the unnumbered which
qualifies the link, i.e., it is identifier for unnumbered link,
not link identifier which is unnumbered. So it enters in the dubious
wording class... (still editorial issue so either you fix it at the
occasion of a new version (needed for *another* reason), or you leave
it to the RFC Editor).

Thanks

[e-mail]