Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-acme-onion-05: 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-acme-onion/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In Section 8.5, what does "SHOULD consider" mean? I suggest lowercasing the "SHOULD". This happens again in Sections 8.9 and 8.9.1. I don't understand what "SHOULD wait some (indeterminate) amount of time" in Section 4 means either. It seems peculiar to make an unspecified thing formally optional. The instances of SHOULD and SHOULD NOT in Sections 3.1.2, 3.2, 5, 6.2, and 6.4, seem bare in the sense that I don't know when I might choose to contradict what they say. If we're giving implementers a choice here, we should leave them with some idea under what conditions they might choose to do the opposite of what it says. _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- acme@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to acme-le...@ietf.org
