Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-17: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Orie's DISCUSS position. His point about Security Considerations might draw an additional DISCUSS from the SEC ADs. The shepherd writeup doesn't explain why Proposed Standard is being requested. (It's fairly obvious, but I'd prefer a bit more completeness.) I think the SHOULD [NOT]s in the "object-identifier" section could use some guidance about why they're only SHOULD [NOT]. Is there a reason one might deviate from this advice? What's the interoperability impact of doing so? Same question about the SHOULD under "domain-name". _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
