> On Apr 2, 2018, at 15:20, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > 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 submitted a PR to address this: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/62/files I’ll merge in a bit. > 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. Yeah I figure we can do this during the AUTH48 stage ;) > 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. Glad you liked the hack! spt _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
