- From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:29:20 -0800
- To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
- Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-19: 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-httpbis-rfc6265bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I echo the kudos from others about a very good work product here. I support Eric's DISCUSS position. Some of the SHOULD [NOT] instances in Section 4.1.1 could benefit from either conversion to MUST [NOT] or an explanation of the choice that's being left to implementers. Same point in Section 5.8.3. == Comments from Andy Newton, incoming ART AD == I agree with Gunter’s comment. This is a very well-written document, and many thanks go to the authors for their effort and commitment. I do have one small observation. Section 5.7 has an ordered list with sub-lists. There seems to be an inconsistency in the “Otherwise:” sub-list between item 18 and the other items where an “Otherwise:” is embedded in a sub-list (for example items 9 and 10).
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2025 08:29:25 UTC