Re: [precis] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-precis-mappings-11: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

<hat type='shepherd'/>

On 9/2/15 4:04 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-precis-mappings-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-precis-mappings/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> - The write-up didn't tell me if this is likely to be
> considered as neutral by the Unicode folks, or as
> something non-neutral. I'm curious about that, but not
> concerned much. I do think the IESG should be aware
> though if this is something that might cause e.g.
> liaison fun for the IAB later on.  (I'm not saying I
> think it does/would btw, just that I'd like to know if
> it might.)

What do you mean by "neutral"?

> - The secdir review [1] raised an issue and some
> changes were proposed for a -12 version that hasn't
> yet popped out (which is fine). This is just to note
> that to decrease the probability we forget:-)
>
>     [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05900.html

I do think that a pointer to RFC 7564 (especially §12.5) would be helpful.

Peter