Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: 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-capport-rfc7710bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. I really like the signaling of 'no captive portal'. Please find below one non-blocking COMMENT (but you know the story) and 2 nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 2.2 == In "should not be provisioned", I would suggest to use the normative "SHOULD". == NITS == -- Abstract -- Not all users of a captive portal are 'customers', they can be guests, students, employees, ... suggest to use 'users' (and even in the world of IoT). -- Section 2 -- Authors, being English natives, are probably correct but " should not be provisioned via IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA options." looks weird to m; why not " should be provisioned via neither IPv6 DHCP nor IPv6 RA options." ? _______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
