[regext] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-04: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-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/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-regext-rfc7483bis/



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

Thank you to Rich Salz for the SECDIR review, and the discussion around it is
appreciated.

** Section 3. handle.  Per “This value is a simple string”, is this making a
statement about the JSON data type?  I didn’t follow what this clarification
added on top of the original text in RFC7483.

** Section 3.  Editorial.
OLD
The "fn" member is required and MUST NOT be null
   according to [RFC6350], where an empty "fn" member MAY be used when
   the contact name does not exist or is redacted.

NEW
The "fn" member is required and MUST NOT be null according to [RFC6350].  An
empty "fn" member MAY be used when the contact name does not exist or is
redacted.