Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-client-cert-field-05: (with COMMENT)

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 09.03.2023 11:31, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-httpbis-client-cert-field-05: 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-httpbis-client-cert-field/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-07
> CC @evyncke
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
>
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
> appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit.
>
> Special thanks to Mark Nottingham for the shepherd's detailed write-up
> including the WG consensus *and* the WG discussion about the intended status.
>
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> ## COMMENTS
>
> ### Use of normative BCP 14 language
>
> Yet another IETF draft using the normative BCP14 language in an informative
> document. No need to reply, this use of normative language is becoming usual
> :-( but I wanted to point it out.

"informational", not "informative".

That said, I fail to see why that is a problem. A spec can be published
as "informational" but still make normative requirements, no?

(FWIW, the same is true for "experimental").

 > ...

Best regards, Julian