[lamps] John Scudder's Abstain on draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-20: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-20: Abstain

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Russ Housley for the shepherd writeup and in particular for this
paragraph:

  When this update was started, the number of updates was expected to
  be smaller.  It is recognized that complex update documents place a
  burden on implementers.  So, when LAMPS WG tries to progress CMP to
  Internet Standard, a bis document will be produced to combine the
  base specification and the updates.

I can see that the effort that went into this document was needed. I can see
that it will be invaluable for preparing the bis. What I can't see is why
publishing it as an RFC will be beneficial, as opposed to keeping it as a WG
draft and using it to prepare the bis.