Subject: [Ecrit] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34: (with COMMENT)

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:20:42 -0700

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34: 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-ecrit-additional-data/

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

I have no objections to the publication of this document.

- I find text like "Optional for blocks supplied by the originating
device, mandatory otherwise" in multiple places in this specification. 
Is there a reason for not saying "originating devices MAY supply this
information, all other entities MUST supply this information" or some
such?

- I look forward to the resolution of Stephen's DISCUSS points.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:29:51 -0700

>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data/

The reason is simply that this text is in the "Use:" field of a block 
definition, where the usual values are "required", "conditional", and 
"optional".

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
The Macintosh may only have 10% of the market, but it is clearly
the top 10%.
       --Douglas Adams, 1996 WWDC.