Andrew Alston has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-28: 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-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the document, I've opted against making this a discuss - though debated doing so, I would like however to see some feedback on the below point. I think having read this, and then read through the other comments submitted most of what I was going to say is already covered. I would though like the draw specific reference to John's comment on section 6.1 and the regex for the time typedef contained there in. Considering the number of time formats in existence (RFC822/RFC822/RFC850/RFC1123/RFC1123/RFC3339) and sub-parts of those RFC's (what I will refer to as RFC822Z, RFC1123Z and RFC3339Nano) it would be nice to see a format that conforms to one of the defined standards unless there is specific reason to deviate. I also think that if we're conforming to one of the above - this should probably form a reference in the document for clarity. _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
