Subject: [netmod] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 16:06:48 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: 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-netmod-rfc6087bis/

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

Thanks for this very readable and informative document. I am balloting YES, but
I do have a few minor comments:

Substantive Comments:

§3, first paragraph:

Can there be a citation for internet-draft guidelines? Also, it seems odd to
have a normative MUST for I-D guidelines, but the RFC guidelines are not
normative?

§3.5: Is the referenced draft in the example likely to become an RFC prior to
publication? As it is, the way it is referenced looks a lot like a citation,
which are not recommended in an abstract.

§3.7:  The URL in the second paragraph is very dependent on the structure of
the tools pages. Any reorganization of those pages is likely to break the link.
I wonder if there is a way to alias that to something less brittle.

§4.8, 2nd paragraph: I’m surprised to see the WG mail list a MUST level
requirement here. WGs (and their mailing lists) come and go. I think, in many
cases, it would make more sense to list the IESG as the contact, at least for
standards track models. (I’ve seen us do that more often lately for IANA
registrations, and this seems in the same spirit.)

I can see that it might still make sense to reference the WG list in some
circumstances, but MUST seems excessive. . Editorial Comments and Nits:

§3.9, last paragraph:

There are two clauses starting with “, which”, which I think are intended as
restrictive clauses. Consider s/“, which”/“that”