Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-09: 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/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-grow-nrtm-v4/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I understand this protocol works over HTTP using an IETF-defined Internet transport, hence there are no specific transport-related concerns. I have two comments that are likely very easy to address (both call for a little more background rationale): "All configuration options SHOULD be clearly named to indicate that they are private keys." - Are there actual requirements where this needs to not be the case: if not, why not MUST? or if so, please explain those cases? "It is RECOMMENDED that implementations use a bounded exponential backoff strategy," - I strongly agree, please could you add a sentence to explain why this is important. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
