Hi Bernie, Thanks for the review. One comment about this part > It might be a question of whether a RFC is needed to do this, We explored that early in the process. The feedback we got from IESG/IANA can be found here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ODzpKV0rlsK_rH2wE_wBhsFz7Qs/. Cheers, Med (as author) > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Bernie Volz via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > Envoyé : mardi 1 juillet 2025 21:23 > À : int-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc : draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers.all@xxxxxxxx; last- > call@xxxxxxxx; netconf@xxxxxxxx > Objet : draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-03 ietf last call Intdir > review > > > Document: draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers > Title: NETCONF Transport Port Numbers > Reviewer: Bernie Volz > Review result: Ready > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-netconf- > port-numbers-03. These comments were written primarily for the > benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and > shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat > comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along > with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more > details on the INT Directorate, see > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fda > tatracker.ietf.org%2Fgroup%2Fintdir%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucad > air%40orange.com%7C6bb5685d206a4f69883208ddb8d4babb%7C90c7a20af34b40 > bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638869945985293578%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs > b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFO > IjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UsLdDgwiYK1cbdj8%2FC > Fhp%2FHVfZpnZ18Izj1gR4e4K2Q%3D&reserved=0. > > Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this > document as YES / NO OBJECTION. > > This document looks fine. I had thought that perhaps it should > indicate it updates a couple older RFCs but as these are already > marked historic, unlikely to be of any use. > > It seems worthwhile to remove the unneeded port assignments. > > It might be a question of whether a RFC is needed to do this, > especially for documents marked historic, but I assume if not the > IESG will indicate so and likely this work would not have been > started. And, that would not remove the unneeded UDP port > assignments for -ssh and -beep. > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
