Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ace-aif-06: 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-ace-aif/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The shepherd writeup seems to have been done in something of a hurry, and I'd like to see that cleaned up if possible before publication. Specifically: The first question doesn't contain a complete answer. The Document Quality section is not answered at all. "No" is a curious answer to #13; it's saying references are not split into "Normative" and "Informative"? The answer to #14 is similarly curious. The answer to #18 is confusing; it appears to be a registry snapshot, not a confirmation that any new registries are properly defined. Lastly, #20 was not answered. The Abstract seems to suggest very broad application. Should there be a sentence in there that indicates the context of the work (specifically, ACE)? In Section 5.1, "Required Parameters" shouldn't be "none", but rather "N/A"; see Section 5.6 of RFC 6838 for more information. The second paragraph of Section 6 (about default-deny) strikes me as something that should really be up in Section 2 or Section 3; it's something fundamental and ought to be called out up front. _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
