Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-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-tls-iana-registry-updates/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd suggest that the authors review the OpsDir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2018-02-20/ I especially agree with #1 ("It would be useful from an operator perspective to add to the registries where the Recommended column is added a text similar to the one in Section 6,...") I'm guessing it is not needed, but should there be a note to the RFC editor to fix the "IANA [SHALL prepend/has prepended]..." bit to "IANA has prepended..." throughout? 'tis probably obvious enough, but I figured worth asking. The Nits Checker grumps about missing Updates in the Abstract -- I was getting ready to fuss about this, and then found "This document updates many (D)TLS RFCs (see updates header)." - this seems like a fine hack to me. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
