Subject: [Pals] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:03:28 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis-05: 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-pals-rfc4447bis/

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

- It would be nice to see a mention that this advances the status to
Internet Standard somewhere near the top of the document. Section 10 is
sufficient for that, but it sort of buries the lede. (It's too late to
matter now,  but it would have been helpful to have the status change
called out more strongly in the shepherd writeup and last call
announcement. )

I would rather strongly like to see the IANA considerations from the
obsoleted RFCs to be copied forward, perhaps with a preface that these
were originally in 4447, etc. Especially since this draft requests the
references point to it, effectively orphaning the 4447 IANA
considerations.

There are a few odd uses of 2119 keywords, all of which I think existed
in the original text:

- 7.1: normative REQUIRED the section title
- 7.2: Unattached "NOTs"
- 9.1 : "there is a perception that security MUST be " seems like a
statement of fact.