Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-09: 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-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [To the IESG: In the IANA Considerations section, the contact for all registrations is "IESG <regext@ietf.org>". That's not the IESG's address though. (I remember us discussing this in previous telechats, but it's late and I'm blanking on whether this is the outcome we wanted.)] My colleagues have made a lot of good suggestions already, so I don't have much to add other than these: In Section 8, there's this bullet: o If a Differential Deposit is to be tested, the dataset is created by using the Differential Deposit plus all the required deposits leading to the last previous Full Deposit. It seems obvious, but should this make clear the order in which the differential deposits are applied? Totally a nit (which I now see Eric V also mentioned): In a couple of places there's an ASCII expression like "ASCII value 0x002B". Since ASCII is 7-bit, shouldn't that just be "ASCII value 0x2B"? _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
