Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-16: 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-pcaplinktype/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review.

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS feedback.

There was new text introduced after the -12 version brought to the telechat.

** New Section 2.2.2 text:

   Specifications that are not publicly available, but which may be
   obtained via liaison agreements (such as to ITU-T, drafts, IEEE,
   etc.) are acceptable particularly if the specification document will
   be public eventually.  This includes specifications that might be
   subject to a security classification for which no public document
   will ever be made.

Consider it really necessary to describe why no public document will be made. 
The term “security classification” could mean a few things and it isn’t needed
for the justification.  For example, this text could mean a government is a
controlling authority.  Does that mean a company’s proprietary link type not be
possible?  I recommend maximizing flexibility (which I think is the current
approach in the code).

Editorial -- As written this text is also confusing.  The first sentence talks
about specifications which might be public eventually.  Then the second
sentence opens with “This includes, …”, but talks about specification which
will never be released.

Maybe say something to the effect of:

Registrations for specifications that are not publicly available are
acceptable.  This includes specifications obtained via liaison agreements (such
as to ITU-T, drafts, IEEE, etc.), those that may eventually be made public, or
those for which no public document will be available.



_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to