Hi Qiufang, Thank you for considering my comments. The updated version of the draft you have shared addresses them nicely.
Thanks again, Charles > On Apr 1, 2026, at 1:19 AM, maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Charles, > > Thanks a lot for the review. The author have published -14, which > incorporates your comments below. Feel free to review the diff at : > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl-14, and > let us know if you have further comments. > > Best Regards, > Qiufang //co-author > > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Eckel via Datatracker [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 5:19 AM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Charles Eckel's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl-13: (with > COMMENT) > > Charles Eckel has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl-13: 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-opsawg-ucl-acl/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for your work in this document. I have some non-blocking COMMENTS that > I > share in the hope of helping to improve the document. > > Section 1. Introduction > > +1 to Deb's comment on clarifying "flushing out the MAC address". > > I think it would be helpful to separate the last sentence into two, as > follows: > "The document does not specify how to map the policy group identifiers to > dedicated fields. Group-Based Policy (GBP), discussed in Section 6.2.3 of > [RFC9638], provides an example of how that may be achieved." > > Section 3. Usage > > I found the following sentence hard to parse and suggest a possible > alternative. > > OLD > An alternate approach is to configure endpoint groups to classify users, > enterprise devices and applications and associate ACLs with endpoint groups so > that endpoints in each group can share a group of ACL rules. > > NEW > An alternate approach is to configure endpoint groups to classify users, > enterprise devices, and applications, and to associate ACLs with endpoint > groups so that endpoints in each group can share a group of ACL rules. > > > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
