Hi, Mike, Thanks a lot for catching and flagging the nits below, the authors have published -15 to fix them. The diff is available at : https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl-15.
Best Regards, Qiufang //co-author -----Original Message----- From: Mike Bishop via Datatracker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:53 PM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl-14: (with COMMENT) Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl-14: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # IESG review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl-13 CC @MikeBishop ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Typos #### Section 4.2.1, paragraph 3 ``` - defined. Such considerations are deployment specific and are out of - ^ + defined. Such considerations are deployment-specific and are out of + ^ ``` #### Section 4.3, paragraph 1 ``` - Policies enforcement can be targeted to different endpoint groups in - ^^^ + Policy enforcement can be targeted to different endpoint groups in + ^ ``` ### Outdated references Document references `draft-ietf-netmod-RFC8407bis`, but that has been published as `RFC9907{quote}. ### Grammar/style #### "Abstract", paragraph 2 ``` ions and Management Area Working Group Working Group mailing list (opsawg@iet ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This phrase is duplicated. You should probably use "Working Group" only once. #### Section 5.1, paragraph 4 ``` not need to mirror exactly the "group id" used to populate the policy. How th ^^ ``` This abbreviation for "identification" is spelled all-uppercase. #### Section 5.2, paragraph 32 ``` such cases, PEPs do not require to implement specific logic (including hardwa ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Did you mean "implementing"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, "require" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun. #### Section 5.2, paragraph 33 ``` put in place to map a Group ID to packets fields, typically managed by a con ^^^^^^^ ``` Nouns are not usually modified by plural nouns. Is it possible that you meant to use the singular or possessive form here? #### Section 11, paragraph 4 ``` starting at 8:30:00 of January 20, 2026 with an offset of -08:00 from UTC ( ^^^^ ``` Some style guides suggest that commas should set off the year in a month-day-year date. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
