[Id-event] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-11: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-11: 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-secevent-http-poll/



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

A couple of questions arise for me about the use of requirements language:

Section 2.1:
* Under what circumstances would you not follow the advice of that SHOULD?

Section 2.2:
* "... the oldest SETs available SHOULD be returned first." -- why is that only
a SHOULD?

Section 2.4:
* "... SHOULD parse and validate received SETs to meet its own requirements
..." -- when would you not do this?

And a nit:

Section 2.2:
* "An OPTIONAL JSON integer value ..." -- JSON defines "number", not "integer";
I understand what you mean, but that distinction has drawn complaints on
previous documents.