Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-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-grow-bmp-peer-up/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Abstract and Section 1 The changes in this document are formal only, compliant implementations of RFC 7854, RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 also comply with this specification. -- I am unable to parse this sentence. What does it mean? For example, do documents make "informal changes"? -- In what way is RFC8671 and RFC9069 updated? ** Section 5. Editorial. This rearrangement of deck chairs does not change the underlying security issues inherent in the existing [RFC7854]. Consider restating this text more clearly without using the Titanic (?) metaphor. NEW This document does not alter the security considerations of RFC7854 which continue to apply. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- grow@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to grow-le...@ietf.org
