Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-04: 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-quic-bit-grease/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Apologies for not being able to do a more in-depth review, I'm currently traveling (an emergency trip to South Africa), and so am relying on Scott Bradner's OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-quic-bit-grease-04-opsdir-telechat-bradner-2022-06-14/). I'd like to thank Scott and the authors for addressing Scott's comments in the -03 version and to Scott for updating it for -04. Like Scott I really think that this should use the Updates tag - yes, Updates is very poorly defined, and perhaps we should have a "See Also" / "Worth Reading" / "Closely Related" / "If you enjoyed this RFC, you may also enjoy these other ones" / "NOTICE TO IMPLEMENTERS: See RFCxxxx" tags -- but without them, we use Updates for this. I'll be on a plane during the telechat, but I urge the rest of the IESG to discuss / consider this...
