[netmod] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-17: (with COMMENT)

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

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-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-netmod-rfc6991-bis/



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

I support Orie's DISCUSS position.  His point about Security Considerations
might draw an additional DISCUSS from the SEC ADs.

The shepherd writeup doesn't explain why Proposed Standard is being requested. 
(It's fairly obvious, but I'd prefer a bit more completeness.)

I think the SHOULD [NOT]s in the "object-identifier" section could use some
guidance about why they're only SHOULD [NOT].  Is there a reason one might
deviate from this advice?  What's the interoperability impact of doing so?

Same question about the SHOULD under "domain-name".