Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-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/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-rfc7483bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I concur with Alissa's observation. This is a "bis" document, after all. Thanks for Section 11. Section 10.1 is an update to an existing media type registration, not a new one. Therefore: * Shouldn't this become the referenced document? Or is RFC 7483 still controlling for this registration? * If the latter, should this section be deleted? * If the former, should the registration still mention WEIRDS, or should it be updated to REGEXT? _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
