Subject: [DMM] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 03:38:48 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-04: 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-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params/

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

In 3.1.1 and 3.1.2: I assume all 16-bit values are in Network byte order,
but it would be good if the document said so.

In response to Mirja's point 4: I think specifying requirements on
management interfaces is appropriate using RFC 2119 language. And yes, if
an option is sent on the wire, it should be configurable. But I think
drawing implementor's attention to this is important.