[mpls] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-08: (with COMMENT)

[Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-08: 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-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update/



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

[[ comments ]]

[ section 1.2.1 ]

* I find it slightly odd that this section even exists.

  RFC 8126 section 1 seems to provide a definition for "namespace" and
  for "assignment"/"registration".  My reading of 8126s1's definition
  of namespace doesn't seem to quite match this document's use of namespace
  (seems more like the definition of registry without the existence of
  a definition for "sub-registry"), but maybe I haven't spent enough time
  thinking about it.

  If IANA review is fine with this text here, I've no objection.


[[ nits ]]

[ section 1 ]

* "there hav been" -> "there have been"