<hat type='shepherd'/>
On 9/2/15 4:04 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-precis-mappings-11: 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-precis-mappings/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- The write-up didn't tell me if this is likely to be
considered as neutral by the Unicode folks, or as
something non-neutral. I'm curious about that, but not
concerned much. I do think the IESG should be aware
though if this is something that might cause e.g.
liaison fun for the IAB later on. (I'm not saying I
think it does/would btw, just that I'd like to know if
it might.)
What do you mean by "neutral"?
- The secdir review [1] raised an issue and some
changes were proposed for a -12 version that hasn't
yet popped out (which is fine). This is just to note
that to decrease the probability we forget:-)
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05900.html
I do think that a pointer to RFC 7564 (especially §12.5) would be helpful.
Peter
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
