[ippm] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: (with COMMENT)

[Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: 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-ippm-ioam-conf-state/



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

Thanks to Chris Lonvick for the SecDir review. He raised a few points that are
worth addressing:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-05-secdir-lc-lonvick-2022-09-30/

   Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.

Can this be extended to say "and MUST be ignored when non-zero" ? There is more
than one of these.

Why is the SoP field specified as two bits from a reserved field, when it only
uses one bit? Why not just take one bit from the reserved field?