Hello Murray, thank you for your comment. I have corrected the grammar item that you pointed out.
Regarding mentioning the same issue(concerning the compare issue being potentially computationally expensive) in sections 7 and 9, that issue is relevant both from a performance as well as from a security standpoint, hence it is mentioned in both places. In fact, originally it was only mentioned under security considerations, but explicitly added as a performance consideration per another request that was received. Hence, I think it does not hurt to keep this as is and call it out in both places. Kind regards --- Alex On 7/14/2021 2:55 PM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote: > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In Section 7: > > "... number of requests that is served to a client ..." -- s/is/are/ > > Also, it strikes me that some of what's in Section 7 is repeated in the last > paragraph of Section 9. I wonder if they could perhaps be merged, or 9 could > reference 7, or something. > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
