Subject: [Acme] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-ip-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 15:03:51 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-acme-ip-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-acme-ip/

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

I had initially balloted DISCUSS, and, after discussions with the authors / WG
am changing to No Objection.

I must admit I have a visceral dislike of this - making IP address certificates
faster / easier / more automated to obtain them **feels**  like a bad outcome
-- intellectually I understand that IP address certs already exist, and that
standardizing the protocol is likely a good thing -- but it still makes me
uncomfortable.

"This makes me twitch" is, however, not a reasonable criteria for a DISCUSS or
blocking a document, and so I'm balloting No Objection.

I'd spent a while writing up an "Abstain" position (in the "I oppose this
document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way
of the others." sense), but that simply felt like a non-blocking,
passive-aggressive version of DISCUSS, so am settling on NoObjection...