Subject: [v6ops] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 02:59:05 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: 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-v6ops-rfc6555bis/

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

Someome id-nits:

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references

     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'Section 3' is mentioned on line 120, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'Section 4' is mentioned on line 164, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'Section 5' is mentioned on line 202, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'Section 6' is mentioned on line 169, but not defined

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

---

From: Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:54:02 -0700

Hello Benoit,

Thank you for your review! The ID-nits are due to references to later sections in the text, which we believe are appropriate and useful links to still include. As for the comment about lower-maturity documents, I believe we only reference Standards Track RFCs, other than the BCP RFC 2119 for the "MUST", etc, definitions.

Thanks,
Tommy

> On Oct 19, 2017, at 2:59 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
>