[babel] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-06: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-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-babel-rtt-extension/



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

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS (archived below for hysterical raisins):

"First off, let me start by saying that I like the general idea and concept in
this document, but, like others, I think that it needs more formalism.

One major concern of mine is that it says: "Updates: 8967 (if approved)"

The shepherds writeup notes that this document is Standards Track because it
needs to update a Standards Track document, but no-where in the document does
it actually say **how** it updates RFC8967. Perhaps the header intended to say
that the documents updates RFC8966? Even if that is the case, the document
doesn't actually say **how** it updates it... The Abstract should say "This
document updates RFC896X by fooing the bar and twiddling the baz." (or similar)"