Re: [stir] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd-23: (with COMMENT)

[Chris Wendt <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

Thanks for the review, i have resolved your nit comments in the 24 document.

-Chris

> On Nov 29, 2022, at 6:16 PM, John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd-23: 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-stir-passport-rcd/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for this document, it seems thorough and well-written, as far as this
> non-expert can tell. I have just a few nit-level things to mention.
> 
> 1. In Section 4, "This mechanism is inspired by and based on the W3C
> Subresource Integrity specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/)." Instead of
> listing the URL inline, that seems like it really should be a reference.
> 
> 2. Section 4, first paragraph, "what data is allowed to be used". Shouldn't
> that be "data are"? (I said these were nits...)
> 
> 3. Section 4, last para, "The third and fourth mode cover cases", should be
> "modes".
> 
> That's it. Yours for agreement in number.
> 
> 
>