Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-04: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-quic-bit-grease-04: 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-quic-bit-grease/



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

Apologies for not being able to do a more in-depth review, I'm currently
traveling (an emergency trip to South Africa), and so am relying on Scott
Bradner's OpsDir review
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-quic-bit-grease-04-opsdir-telechat-bradner-2022-06-14/).

I'd like to thank Scott and the authors for addressing Scott's comments in the
-03 version and to Scott for updating it for -04. Like Scott I really think
that this should use the Updates tag - yes, Updates is very poorly defined, and
perhaps we should have a "See Also" / "Worth Reading" / "Closely Related" / "If
you enjoyed this RFC, you may also enjoy these other ones" / "NOTICE TO
IMPLEMENTERS: See RFCxxxx" tags -- but without them, we use Updates for this.
I'll be on a plane during the telechat, but I urge the rest of the IESG to
discuss / consider this...