[lamps] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-20: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-20: 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-lamps-cmp-updates/



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

I share the concerns from my fellow ADs. This is a long diff/change document,
which not nice to read and can lead to confusion. I ,however, see this as a
short term fix and want to believe the implementer's and consumers of this doc
have given their consent to publish the document like it is . So I am balloting
no objection.

That said, this document need to describe the motivation to this publication.
so why updates and why not a -bis? to bring us on the same page. The shepherd's
write up hints the plan and reason but I would suggest to add those reasoning
and plans in the document itself.