[manet] Re: Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet -dlep-traffic-classification-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Murray

Thanks for you comments we have posted a version that tries to address all the points,
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-14.txt

Please check the current IANA request. I cleaned up the text. We are asking for a range that is Specification Required not expert review.

Let me know if any changes are required
Thanks
Don

________________________________
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 2:45 AM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13: Discuss

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-manet-dlep-traffic-classification/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 5.2 declares a new registry, a range of which is controlled by
"Specification Required" rules.  RFC 8126, Section 4.6, says:

   As with Expert Review (Section 4.5), clear guidance to the designated
   expert should be provided when defining the registry, and thorough
   understanding of Section 5 is important.

Is no such advice in order here?


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

Section 5 says:

  This document requests the assignment of several values by IANA. All
  assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175].

But it only creates one registration to an extant registry, right?  I would
just delete this text.

Also about Section 5.2: The presentation here is a little confusing.  One of
these rows defines a range available for reservation and the rules for such
registrations, while all other rows are actual registrations.  It might be
helpful to take the "Specification Required" row out and turn it into prose.

A nit about Section 4:

* "... introduces finer grain flow ..." -- s/grain/grained/

...and one in Appendix A:

* "... We morn his passing ..." -- s/morn/mourn/

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]