[regext] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02: (with COMMENT)

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02: 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-regext-rfc7482bis/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document. I found the document clear and
easy to read.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2 --
Please use BCP14 template (cfr RFC 8714).

-- Section 3.1.1 --
CIDR RFC 4632 only applies to IPv4... and also uses the words 'prefix length'
rather than 'bitmask length'.

"2001:db8::0" is not following the RFC 5952 that is RECOMMENDED just a couple
of paragraphs above ;-)

== NITS ==

Like Ben Kaduk, I wonder why using a 16-bit value for US-ASCII "('*', US-ASCII
value 0x002A)"...