Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: 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-alto-new-transport/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thank you for this document. I haven't reviewed this document that closely, and it might be interesting to know whether there are interoperable implementations of this specification, or where there may still be issues lurking, or more precise text to describe its behavior and APIs. Hence, I was wondering whether it would be better from this document to be published as an experimental RFC rather than Proposed Standard, this would then leave a lot more flexibility for making more substantial changes to the protocol specification in future, if needed. Regards, Rob _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
