[mile] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-10: 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-mile-iodef-guidance/



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

I'll also echo Ben / Benoit's comments and also thank Qin Wu for the OpsDir
review. I've just seen that you have responded to it, thank you.

I especially don't understand the:
"Interoperability between RID agents and the standards, Use of  [RFC6545] and
[RFC6546], were also proven in this exercise." -- is the "Use of" superfluous?
I *think* so, and removing it fixes it, but I'm not quite sure what was
intended.

Many of the nit checker things seem simply to solve (like the use of
non-documentation addresses) - these should be addressed.

In addition I have some nits:
Section3.1.
"Minimal IODEF document IODEF includes one mandatory classes. "
s/classes/class/

Section 3.2.  Information represented
" The implementer should  carefully look into the schema and decide classes to
implement (or not)." -- I think this is missing a "which" between "decide" and
"classes".