Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-17: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Many thanks for the write-up. Appreciated. My observation is that while the shepherd writeup claims nothing noteworthy when running idnits, but when i run idnits (https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-17.txt) i end up with a long laundry list of observations. Maybe worthwhile to run through the list and explain why they are deemed not meaningful/relevant and add this context in the write-up? One of those idnits observations is that there may only be v4 examples and no v6 examples? G/ _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
