[OPSEC] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsec-v6-26: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 22 April 2021 08:01 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-opsec-v6@ietf.org, opsec-chairs@ietf.org, opsec@ietf.org, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161907847829.28799.9576185174254810049@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 01:01:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/h9EoayAxDkabA35aEpHOKiOLj10>
Subject: [OPSEC] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsec-v6-26: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsec-v6-26: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-v6/



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

Thanks for this work.  It's a useful document to have.  I don't have much to
add that my fellow ADs have not already mentioned.

One procedural nit: The shepherd writeup lacks an answer to the question "Why
is this the proper type of RFC?"  (I realize "Informational" is the right
answer here.  I would just prefer it if shepherds answered it anyway.)  It is
also almost 18 months old.

[OPSEC] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-… Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker