[Ace] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-aif-06: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-aif-06: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-aif/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The shepherd writeup seems to have been done in something of a hurry, and I'd
like to see that cleaned up if possible before publication.  Specifically: The
first question doesn't contain a complete answer.  The Document Quality section
is not answered at all.  "No" is a curious answer to #13; it's saying
references are not split into "Normative" and "Informative"?  The answer to #14
is similarly curious.  The answer to #18 is confusing; it appears to be a
registry snapshot, not a confirmation that any new registries are properly
defined.  Lastly, #20 was not answered.

The Abstract seems to suggest very broad application.  Should there be a
sentence in there that indicates the context of the work (specifically, ACE)?

In Section 5.1, "Required Parameters" shouldn't be "none", but rather "N/A";
see Section 5.6 of RFC 6838 for more information.

The second paragraph of Section 6 (about default-deny) strikes me as something
that should really be up in Section 2 or Section 3; it's something fundamental
and ought to be called out up front.