[MLS] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17: (with COMMENT)

[Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17: 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-mls-protocol/



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

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17
CC @ekline

## Comments

* Thank you very much for all of the explicitly worked examples.

### S7.3

* What is the reason for MUST vs RECOMMENDED difference in the two different
  circumstances when validating the `lifetime` field?

* Consider adding a platitude about communicating nodes SHOULD use some
  method of time synchronization...

## Nits

### S3.2

* "top of these basic mechanism" -> "top of these basic mechanisms"
  (or maybe "top of this basic mechanism")

### S6.3.1

* "in an PrivateContentTBE structure" -> "in a PrivateContentTBE structure"