Subject: [CCAMP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:13:31 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-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-ccamp-layer0-types/

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

The shepherd writeup highlights that YANGDOCTORS reviewed this twice, but the
last one was five versions and almost a year ago.  Should this be refreshed?

[To the IESG:] The shepherd writeup also confirms the intended status, but
doesn't answer the question as to why that's the right answer for this
document.  This seems to be a common mistake.  Should the writeup change to
make it clear we'd like that question answered?  Or should we just include this
in the things we check during AD Evaluation?