MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: 
 <177216940699.2889625.7683857808209415862@dt-datatracker-6ff7c68975-7k42g>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 21:16:47 -0800
Message-ID-Hash: JJNUYZYLZEY6WXAJCWBL7NCWJDHW64RF
CC: draft-ietf-teep-protocol@ietf.org, kondtir@gmail.com,
 teep-chairs@ietf.org, teep@ietf.org
Reply-To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BTeep=5D_Ketan_Talaulikar=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-teep-pr?=
	=?utf-8?q?otocol-26=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/Qjrs34cEYO_naetrNY7y8NzOnBo>

Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teep-protocol-26: 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-teep-protocol/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

Also, thanks for the updates to address the points in my previous DISCUSS
ballot in v26.

However, here are a few comments/suggestions on the updated text in v26:

1) Please fix the section references:
The registries in Sections 13.2 through 13.6 are to be created within this
registry group.

2) On the DE guidance.
The request does not conflict with active IETF work in related areas.

I assume this needs to be qualified as "When the request is coming from outside
of the IETF, ..."?

3) I would urge the authors and the WG to reconsider whether they wanted to
expand the Standards Action range and perhaps do a 50-50% split between
Standards Action and Specification Required. I get the impression that the
Specification Required is meant to mainly cater to allocations from outside the
IETF and if so, please consider whether the range for IETF is sufficient and if
any such range preferences are required to be spelled out in the registry or in
DE guidance. Obviously I don't know enough about this work to say anything
further - so, this is just a point for your consideration.