Subject: [alto] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:46:08 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: 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-alto-incr-update-sse/

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

Thanks for the work on this document. I strongly agree with Suresh’s first
point, regarding the restatement of the merge algorithm. I have one additional
comment:

Section 3.1.2.1:

           "ipv4" : [ "192.0.2.0/24", "198.51.100.0/25",
                      "193.51.100.0/25" ],

The address "193.51.100.0" is from a block allocated to the University of
Paris. Please change it to an RFC 5737 documentation address. (This occurs
twice in the document)

---

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:21:49 -0400

Dear Adam, Suresh, Mirja,

Thanks. The authors now agree and will replace the duplicated pseudo code
with a reference.

Adam: Thanks for catching the 193.51.100.0 IP address issue. We will
replace both cases with a RFC 5737 address.

Thanks again!
Richard

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:46 PM Adam Roach via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> --
Richard