[Suit] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-suit-information-model-08: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 03 December 2020 06:37 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-suit-information-model@ietf.org, suit-chairs@ietf.org, suit@ietf.org, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <160697746988.11643.5723509584593503405@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 22:37:50 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/cw_5gPk3ifb_dFfgQ2Dc9sdZKx8>
Subject: [Suit] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-suit-information-model-08: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-suit-information-model-08: 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-suit-information-model/



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

The "Special consideration ..." paragraph in Section 3.7 seems to be improperly
split.

In Section 3.8, isn't "This element is REQUIRED and MUST be present" redundant?
 (Also in Section 3.10, possibly later too.)

Is it legitimate that Section 4.4.3 satisfies itself?

[Suit] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-i… Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker