[Eligibility-discuss] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04: (with COMMENT)

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

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04: 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-elegy-rfc8989bis/



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

"The two-per-organization limit in [RFC8713] complicates such an attack.  To
circumvent it, an organization must either [...] (3) propose candidates with
false affiliations."

It's not really clear to me what a "false affiliation" actually is -- in some
other organizations, where voting is a thing, it is common for there to be lots
of one or two person consulting companies. These consultants all have different
affiliations, they just *happen* to have contracts with the same larger
organization, and also just *happen* to all vote in the same way... Would these
be false affiliations? Note that I don't really view this as major issue -- if
we end up in a scenario where people are gaming this, then we've already lost.

As a nit: 'either' is generally used with 2 options.

Thanks to Dan Romascanu for the OpsDir review.