Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-20: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-alto-performance-metrics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Francesca's DISCUSS. I suggest breaking Section 7 into separate subsections for each request. Specifically, the registrations in the first paragraph should be clearly separated from the creation of the registry that starts below that. Maybe I'm turning into a dinosaur, but since all of the syntaxes in these documents are constrained to US-ASCII, I wonder why listing Unicode characters individually, or ranges of them (e.g., Section 2.1), is preferred to using ABNF. All of the SHOULDs in this document feel weak to me. I can't tell, for example, why an implementer might do anything other than what follows the SHOULD, which suggests to me that they should be MUSTs. If there's some reason to leave the option there, I think some supporting text would be warranted. _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
