[stir] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-15: (with COMMENT)

"Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Tue, 01 November 2016 18:29 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147802497964.23916.2747297219351826234.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 11:29:39 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/4s9UPU3QxEbVdtg52tUNxgixTKY>
Cc: stir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis@ietf.org, stir-chairs@ietf.org, rjsparks@nostrum.com
Subject: [stir] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-15: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-15: 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-stir-rfc4474bis/



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

One minor comment:
Not sure how the solution with "ppt" field came up for extensibility.
Wouldn't it make sense to have a version field instead that always has to
be presented (or if not present is assumed to be 0); just to reduce
implementation complexity. Or am I missing something? Just wondering...
btw. what does 'ppt' stand for?

[stir] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ie… Mirja Kuehlewind
[stir] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ie… Mirja Kuehlewind