Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-18: 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-regext-rdap-rir-search/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review. ** Section 9 Implementations SHOULD also refer to [RFC8446] and [BCP195] for additional details. What does it mean to for implementers “SHOULD also refer to …”? What if they don’t? Does “refer” suggest any action? Practically, I don’t think the “SHOULD keyword” is well suited here. When should BCP195 advice be ignored? _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
