[MBONED] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-06: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 07 January 2020 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB034120832; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 09:57:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm@ietf.org, Colin Doyle <cdoyle@juniper.net>, mboned-chairs@ietf.org, cdoyle@juniper.net, mboned@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.115.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <157841986979.20855.15851916164010979864.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 09:57:49 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/EQn2350h18QgWImB14fU2wDu03Q>
Subject: [MBONED] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mboned/>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 17:57:53 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-06: 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:


** Section 4.1.  This section appears to provide multiple definitions of
“separate administrative entities”.  Per the paragraph “The more inclusive
interpretation of this recommendation …”, it wasn’t clear to me under what
circumstance the reader should use the more “inclusive interpretation”.

** Section 4.  This section would benefit from being clearer on who should act
on a few of the recommendation:

-- Section 4.3 – vendors/developers of multicast applications?

-- Section 4.4 – not clear who is supposed to develop this guidance?

-- Section 4.6 – not clear who is supposed to developing this guidance long term

** Editorial Nits:
-- Section 3.2.3. Typo. s/particularily/particularly/

-- Section 4.9.  Typo. s/implentations/implementations/