Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10: 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-grow-bmp-local-rib/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Something for the IESG first. In the shepherd writeup: -- BEGIN -- (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib is a Standards track document. -- END -- This is increasingly common. There are three questions being asked, but only one is being answered, and not the most important one at that. I'd really like it if this started getting caught someplace in the review process before IESG Evaluation. Or, if we don't actually care about the answer anymore, we should simplify or remove the question. As for the document content, just one thing: Martin pointed out a couple of acronyms he'd like to see expanded. To that list I add "BMP" and "RD". More well-known, but still worth considering, are "SPF" and "CSPF". Up in the applications space, where the air is admittedly thinner, "SPF" is a protocol for expressing email policy. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
