[Taps] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-interface-26: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-interface-26: 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-taps-interface/



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

Thanks to Robert Sparks for his dual ARTART reviews.

Kudos to the document shepherd who took the time to give a comprehensive
explanation as to why there are eight authors, saving us the investigation and
debate.

In Section 5, in the second bullet, the two SHOULDs seem redundant to each
other to me.

Various other SHOULDs in the document (Sections 6, 8, and 9 mainly) left me
wondering "Why?".  I think you might be using at least some of them to mean
"this is really good advice", while BCP 14 is meant more to constrain
implementations for interoperability reasons.  You might consider adding some
text to them that explains why they're short of a MUST, or just make them fully
OPTIONAL.  I note Roman's most recent comments and was tempted to DISCUSS this,
so please do give it a second look.