[Idr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-18: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-18: 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/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-idr-flow-spec-v6/



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

Thanks for clearing up my confusion on the DISCUSS point that I had, and for
posting -18 with resolutions to that and my comments.

I’ll leave the remaining comment here for the record, leaving it for the
editors to do what they think best.

   In the case Length minus Offset is 0 every address matches.  Length
   MUST always be in the range 0-128 and Length minus Offset MUST always
   be 0 or more, otherwise this component is malformed.

Is there actually value in allowing 129 ways to match every address
(length=offset=0, length=offset=1, length=offset=87, and so on)?  If not, it
seems less prone to error to say that length=offset=0 matches every address,
and otherwise length MUST be greater than offset or the component is malformed.
 No?