Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-taps-interface-26: 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-taps-interface/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Robert Sparks for his dual ARTART reviews. Kudos to the document shepherd who took the time to give a comprehensive explanation as to why there are eight authors, saving us the investigation and debate. In Section 5, in the second bullet, the two SHOULDs seem redundant to each other to me. Various other SHOULDs in the document (Sections 6, 8, and 9 mainly) left me wondering "Why?". I think you might be using at least some of them to mean "this is really good advice", while BCP 14 is meant more to constrain implementations for interoperability reasons. You might consider adding some text to them that explains why they're short of a MUST, or just make them fully OPTIONAL. I note Roman's most recent comments and was tempted to DISCUSS this, so please do give it a second look. _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
