Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-19: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A few minor comments: Section 1.1. The role of the text describing the SENSE project isn’t clear. I’m not sure it will age will when in an RFC Section 3. Thanks for providing an overview with the section. Given that this section is non-normative, how should the implementers use the text with RFC2119 words -- is it there just for emphasis? Section 4.1. Per ‘Attribute "cost-type-names" provides a better readability to the Calendar attributes specified …”, could you please clarify “a better readability”. Section 4.3. Nit. s/mode,to/mode, to/ _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
