[sipcore] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons-01: (with COMMENT)

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

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons-01: 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-sipcore-multiple-reasons/



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

I was going to ballot DISCUSS on this, but I see that Paul W has beat me to the
punch.

If a "legacy" implementation gets multiple values for a protocol, it is likely
to be OK with this, or is it likely to explode in a massive fireball? I have
absolutely no idea how many implementations there are, how restrictive their
parsers are, etc (AKA, "Nah, we thought about this, and it's all good" is
enough to satisfy me).

Also, thanks for keeping the document so short and sweet...