[Idr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-14: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-14: No Objection

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-14
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document, it appears to add welcomed
clarification to RFC 7752. Due to lack of time, I have only reviewed the diff
with RFC 7752 and I trust Brian Haberman's intdir review at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-14-intdir-telechat-haberman-2022-12-14/
(thank you Brian).

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit.

Special thanks to Jeffrey Haas for the *very detailed* shepherd's detailed
write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended
status.

I have also appreciated that you list the RFC 7752 authors as contributors to
this document.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric
## COMMENTS

### Section 5.2.2

The IPv4 address family has also link-local addresses (RFC 3927), to the text
about link-local should be address family agnostic, i.e., either use "IPv6/IPv4
link-local address" or simply "link-local address". As this is mostly academic
(IPv4 LLA are usually never used by routers), I am not raising a DISCUSS though.

### Section 5.3.2.3

What is the expected behaviour of the receiver/consumer when the trailing be
are not 0 ?

### Section 5.3.2.7

Unsure what a `subset of the FQDN` is ... Do you mean a substring ?

### Section 5.4

Rather than `The Enterprise Codes are listed at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers>.`, suggest to use a
normative reference.

## NITS

### ISIS vs. IS-IS

Isn't the right writing "IS-IS" ? (I saw at least one such occurence)

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments