[CDNi] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-21: (with COMMENT)
Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 25 February 2021 07:56 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: cdni@ietf.org
Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7922F3A0C7C; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 23:56:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing@ietf.org, cdni-chairs@ietf.org, cdni@ietf.org, kevin.j.ma@ericsson.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.26.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161423978197.19837.14677789862489681445@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 23:56:22 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/_Kag7r5N7PW_96vU4D8RH0vFEW4>
Subject: [CDNi] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-21: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" <cdni.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cdni/>
List-Post: <mailto:cdni@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:56:23 -0000
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-21: 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-cdni-uri-signing/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The IANA Considerations section creates two registries under Specification Required rules. RFC 8126 recommends that the defining document include advice to the designated experts (thank you for volunteering, by the way) about how to evaluate new submissions, but none are included here. Are any appropriate? This seems to be my pet peeve this week, but I'm wondering about most of the SHOULDs in this document. Why aren't they MUSTs? Or in the alternative, could we include some guidance about when an implementer might legitimately choose to deviate from what the SHOULD says to do? I support Roman's DISCUSS position about Section 1.3.
- [CDNi] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-i… Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker