Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication-33: Abstain
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-bfd-optimizing-authentication/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The shepherd report states that there are "no implementations and no known plans to implement." Why publish this document if there no plans to run the experiment? ==== I support the DISCUS positions of Deb Cooley and Éric Vyncke. In particular, Éric emphasizes the need to discuss how an experimental status RFC is making a normative change to PS status RFC (RFC5880). ** idnits reports: == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires).
