Subject: [tsvwg] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:41:09 -0800

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-09: 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/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-tsvwg-ieee-802-11/

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

Agree with Mirja's comments, especially the category, I think this should be a BCP.
A BCP is a way to standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.
While the working group noted their desire for PS to "encourage consistent
implementation", this is the definition of a BCP.
A BCP "is designed to be a way to standardize practices" (RFC2026), it is not
informational.