Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-acme-ip-08: 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-acme-ip/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I had initially balloted DISCUSS, and, after discussions with the authors / WG am changing to No Objection. I must admit I have a visceral dislike of this - making IP address certificates faster / easier / more automated to obtain them **feels** like a bad outcome -- intellectually I understand that IP address certs already exist, and that standardizing the protocol is likely a good thing -- but it still makes me uncomfortable. "This makes me twitch" is, however, not a reasonable criteria for a DISCUSS or blocking a document, and so I'm balloting No Objection. I'd spent a while writing up an "Abstain" position (in the "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way of the others." sense), but that simply felt like a non-blocking, passive-aggressive version of DISCUSS, so am settling on NoObjection... _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
