Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-13: 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-opsawg-tacacs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Section 8.1. "IPV6 address text representation defined in RFC 4291 [RFC4291]" I would much prefer using RFC5952 here as it tightens rules a bit over RFC4291 and cuts down the flexibility to make text comparisons easier. "Stardate is canonically inconsistent and so SHOULD NOT be used." as in "Acting Captain's log, Stardate 2258.42. We have had no word from Captain Pike..."? I agree that it is canonically inconsistent but this will be very confusing for non-Trekkies. Is this really needed here? _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
