Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-10: 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-intarea-rfc7042bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document. I support Warren's DISCUSS. I also wanted to add that, as defined by https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html#section-4.12 policies can be used in combination. So it would be appropriate to replace what now is defined as "IESG Ratification" with "IESG Approval with Expert Review". I believe you can still indicate to IANA that an Expert Review which is not approved by the expert does not need to get to the IESG (as you do now). So in practice you would have the same result using the existing policies. In terms of text, I think the sort of details you already have do not hurt and do not need to be removed, especially since they make it easier for IANA, and are not in contradiction with existing policies (I am thinking of the last paragraph of Section 5.1), once you remove the IESG Ratification term/concept. Hopefully Sabrina (in CC) can correct me if I am wrong, and will be able to give us her opinion during the telechat. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
