Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-04: Discuss
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-alto-cost-mode/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul said: > I think that SHOULD can be a MUST. Although one could question the 2119 usage as it seems to be a directive to a document author and not a protocol action. So I would also be okay with lowercasing this. I'm ambivalent about the first sentence, but I concur strongly with the second; use of BCP 14 language to establish a requirement against some future document seems quite unconventional to me. Can we talk about why this is necessary and/or appropriate? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A minor suggestion: In Section 5, include the table of initial values after you've defined the required fields. _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
