Subject: [Detnet] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 23:12:42 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-09: 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-detnet-bounded-latency/

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

The shepherd writeup doesn't answer the question of why Informational is the
right type of RFC.

Just wanted to check here with the sponsoring AD that we're OK with more
authors than the guidelines recommend.

Section 2 defines "PROEF", but that term appears nowhere in the document.

---

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 12:15:56 +0000

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 2:13 AM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Thanks for checking. The authors have agreed to fix this in the next revision.

—John