Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-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/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-regext-rfc7483bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Rich Salz for the SECDIR review, and the discussion around it is appreciated. ** Section 3. handle. Per “This value is a simple string”, is this making a statement about the JSON data type? I didn’t follow what this clarification added on top of the original text in RFC7483. ** Section 3. Editorial. OLD The "fn" member is required and MUST NOT be null according to [RFC6350], where an empty "fn" member MAY be used when the contact name does not exist or is redacted. NEW The "fn" member is required and MUST NOT be null according to [RFC6350]. An empty "fn" member MAY be used when the contact name does not exist or is redacted. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
