Subject: [Teas] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 04:34:22 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: 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-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/

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

- 5.3: "...this SHOULD NOT be done unless explicitly mandated by local
   policy."

Is that the same as saying this should default to off unless the
administrator chooses to turn it on?

---

From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:36:07 +0000

Ben,

> administrator chooses to turn it on?

Yes. Do you think it's clear enough as is, or should we add your phrasing of it as well?

Cheers

Matt

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:45:42 -0500

> Yes. Do you think it's clear enough as is, or should we add your 

I'm not sure "my phrasing" has been sufficiently word smithed.

But when I see "local policy", sometimes that means policy local to an 
implementation as opposed to policy stated by the protocol 
specification, or policy local to an administrative domain as opposed to 
the implementation. But it may be that your terminology is sufficiently 
understood by the target community. So I'd say it's your choice :-)