Murray Kucherawy 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nice work. A couple of minor things: In Section 2, paragraph 2, it says the operator "SHOULD ensure that the URIs provisioned by each method are equivalent". Does "equivalent" here mean "identical", or just "synonymous"? In Sections 2.1 and 2.2, the lists are bulleted and the names being described are delimited by colons. I suggest the same be done for 2.3. > Thanks IANA! RFC8126 should've required this of all documents. _______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
