Thanks Deb for the review. > On Oct 23, 2025, at 5:02 AM, Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-13: 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-opsawg-pcaplinktype/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The datatracker and the shepherd says 'Informational', but the draft says > 'Standards Track', please update.
There was a lot of back-and-forth on the correct state for the document before setting on Informational state. So, yes, the draft needs to also say “Informational”. > > Many of the references are not stable - anything pointing to a website, for > example. > > Section 3.2.2, para 1: These two sentences are contradictory - 'provide a > specification' and 'no requirement for a specification'. Agree. The section on “Guidance for Registration” needs an update. > > I support Ketan's and Roman's discusses. > > > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
