Subject: [tsvwg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 12:17:11 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-06: Yes

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-fecframe-ext/

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

These are a couple of minor items that weren't worth delaying IESG Evaluation
for the draft, but just so you know about them along with anything else you
hear during IESG Evaluation ...

 Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6363, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC6363
     though, so this could be OK.

I don't feel strongly about asking you to change this to "this document updates
RFC 6363" in the abstract, but tastes differ. I find the current phrasing clear
for human readers, but I've heard rumors that some people scrape Abstracts
looking for specific text. I'll trust you to do the right thing.

In Section 2. when you add the new boilerplate, you delete the old one, so

OLD

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

NEW

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

In 13.  Acknowledgments, it looks like there's a missing "of"

   The authors would like to thank Christer Holmberg, David Black, Gorry
   Fairhurst, and Emmanuel Lochin for their valuable feedbacks on this
   document.  This document being an extension to [RFC6363], the authors
   would also like to thank Mark Watson as the main author this RFC.
                                                          ^ of