Re: [babel] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-05: (with DISCUSS)

[Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,

> take heart and readeth
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ , which
> contains many words on handling ballots. For, as it sayeth upon the lid
> of the tin: "A DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion"...

Thanks for the encouragement.  (As a side note, the document also says
"ADs are careful and considered when balloting DISCUSS".  It is not clear
to me whether this statement is prescriptive or descriptive, and I'm not
sure to what extent it matches the reality.)

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

As mentioned in an earlier reply, this is a mistake.  Sorry for that.

> 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)

Fully agreed.  I'll ask Donald for advice whether it should Update 8966 or
not update anything.  (My preference is the former.)

-- Juliusz