[rmcat] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 05 March 2020 05:03 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria@ietf.org, rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, rmcat@ietf.org, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, varun.singh@iki.fi, csp@csperkins.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <158338461524.29467.3557228535545156630@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 21:03:35 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/xN7LAhxcuFC_gm_HrtjWiapWXj4>
Subject: [rmcat] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: 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-rmcat-eval-criteria/



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

Thanks for the work performed on this document. I agree with Alexey that
Section 3.1 needs to either be fleshed out or removed, as the current
specification is insufficiently specified to create interoperable analysis
tools. You might look to RFC 6873 for an example of the degree of precision
that is called for here.

[rmcat] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-r… Adam Roach via Datatracker