Subject: [kitten] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06: (with DISCUSS)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:04:00 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06: Discuss

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-kitten-rfc5653bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is more for the shepherding AD than the authors/WG: in the discussion
resulting from the Gen-ART review the author indicated that there would be
another pass through the document to capitalize uses of normative must/should
and add a reference to RFC 8174. That seems like the kind of thing where the WG
should get another look at the changes to make sure everyone agrees on what the
normative requirements were/are. Is that the plan?

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:07:17 -0600

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis/

The changes have been made
(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html)
and the WG has been asked for comments.  None have been received
yet, though I do plan to review them this week.

-Ben
(with hat: chair, though I may need to reclaim the shepherd hat as
well)