[regext] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09: 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-allocation-token/



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

Two quick questions (and I'm really no expert here, so these questions might be
stupid):

1) Why should the check return 'unavailable' if the object does not require an
Allocation Token but the check is send with an Allocation Token (sec 3.1.1)? Is
that obvious to everybody else but me or should that maybe be further explained
in the doc? And inline with that, why is it not a MUST to return 'unavailable'
if a Token is required but the sent token doesn't match?

2) Why is this mechanism not applied to delete, renew, and update?