Subject: [art] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-15: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:22:00 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-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-appsawg-file-scheme/

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

'not' missing?
s/It would be impossible for this
   specification to list all such significant characters and device
   names. /It would not be impossible for this
   specification to list all such significant characters and device
   names. /

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:29:33 +0000

Hi Mirja,

From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2016 02:22
>    specification to list all such significant characters and device

No, it would be impossible to list them all.  Instead the onus is on the 
implementer to research their targeted systems.

The text could be changed to say "It would not be possible..." if that would 
help.

Cheers
-- 
Matthew Kerwin | QUT

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:28:07 +0100

Sorry… I read ‚possible‘ instead of ‚impossible‘... I read the sentence at least twice and didn’t manage to phrase but that’s my fault... too much draft reading i guess... forget about it.

> Am 14.12.2016 um 01:29 schrieb Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
>