Subject: Re: [netmod] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexander L Clemm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 11:44:01 -0700

Hello Murray,

thank you for your comment.  I have corrected the grammar item that you
pointed out. 

Regarding mentioning the same issue(concerning the compare issue being
potentially computationally expensive) in sections 7 and 9, that issue
is relevant both from a performance as well as from a security
standpoint, hence it is mentioned in both places.  In fact, originally
it was only mentioned under security considerations, but explicitly
added as a performance consideration per another request that was
received.  Hence, I think it does not hurt to keep this as is and call
it out in both places. 

Kind regards

--- Alex

On 7/14/2021 2:55 PM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote:
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In Section 7:
>
> "... number of requests that is served to a client ..." -- s/is/are/
>
> Also, it strikes me that some of what's in Section 7 is repeated in the last
> paragraph of Section 9.  I wonder if they could perhaps be merged, or 9 could
> reference 7, or something.
>
>
>