Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08: 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-architecture/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have some minor comments: (1) Please expand CAPPORT. (2) §1: s/This document standardizes an architecture/This document describes an architecture This is not a standard track document. (3) §1: "MAY allow a device to be alerted" Other parts of the document (even in the same section) talk about "devices can be notified" or "informs an end-user", while "alert" is not mentioned anywhere else. Given that "alert" has the normative attachment, it would be nice to use consistent language. (4) §2.1: "E.g....MAY avoid updating..." s/MAY/may This is an example, not a normative statement. (5) §3.1: "An Identifier MAY be a field...Or, an Identifier MAY be an ephemeral property..." s/MAY/may These seem to be statements and not normative statements. _______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
