Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: 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-opsawg-tlstm-update/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document. I was going to have the same comment as Roman's first point. Additionally, and in any case, it would be good in my opinion to expand the Expert Guidelines, as the only guideline right now is "consult the security area" (and even then, it's only encouraged). For more input about what I think should be there, RFC 8126 says it best: The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the registry. **It is particularly important to lay out what should be considered when performing an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request.** It is also a good idea to include, when possible, a sense of whether many registrations are expected over time, or if the registry is expected to be updated infrequently or in exceptional circumstances only. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
