Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email-04: Yes
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-uta-tls-for-email/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for doing this. While I don’t like this mechanism for making this update, I understand why, and accept it for this case. — Section 2 — Please use the current BCP 14 boilerplate from RFC 8174, and add a normative reference to that RFC. — Section 3 — The text “In Section 4.1, the text should be revised from: “ should be removed from the third “OLD”, as none of the others have anything like that and it isn’t part of the old text. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + The following are comments from Murray Kucherawy, incoming ART AD. Murray is getting an early start on doing reviews, and I’m including his comments into my ballots during the overlap period before he’s officially an Area Director. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I concur with Radia's review. I would actually prefer to see RFC8314 completely replaced by a new version. It's pretty easy to get the XML for that RFC from the editor, do the search-and-replace, add a "Changes Since" section, reset acknowledgements as appropriate, update the draft's name and date, and send it up. That's pretty much how I did RFC8478bis. The tracker makes it easy to diff to the old version so it's clear only the expected changes are present. _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
