Re: [Captive-portals] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-api-07: (with COMMENT)

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

Thanks for the review! Some comments inline.

> On May 13, 2020, at 12:45 AM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-capport-api-07: 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-capport-api/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Nice work.
> 
> A couple of points on the IANA registrations:
> 
> Section 8.1: The "Interoperability Considerations" text isn't quite what I
> think is anticipated by RFC 6838.  Given what you're saying there against what
> Section 6.2 of that document says, I think you could just have "None" here, but
> either way I suggest it's worth a second look.

This is boilerplate text that we lifted from other RFCs with similar forms (RFC 8460, RFC 8427). I’m fine with this being “None” as well, if that’s the general guidance.
> 
> Section 8.2: I suggest either having a column dedicated to recording the
> specification (since the Designated Expert is supposed to ensure there is one),
> or explicitly encourage that it be referenced in the Description column.

That's a great point. I’ve added this to our working copy in GitHub:

https://github.com/capport-wg/api/commit/67fe784f0cb2883367a46da740378338ecf84805 <https://github.com/capport-wg/api/commit/67fe784f0cb2883367a46da740378338ecf84805>

Thanks,
Tommy
> 
> 
>