Hi Zaheduzzaman, Unfortunately, the authors of RFC 5029 left us no note as to their motivations.
Regards, Tony > On Aug 8, 2024, at 12:43 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-labv-registration-03: 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-lsr-labv-registration/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for working on this. It seems useful change to me. However, I or the > reader would be benefited to know why this was "standard required" in the > first > place, then describe why it is required to be changed. > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
