Subject: [dispatch] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 12:41:58 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03: 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/

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

Section 1

I suggest mentioning somehow in the prose that RFC 4395 was obsoleted by
RFC 7595, to establish the last link in the chain leading to "the
current process"; in the current form the RFC 7595 reference seems to
lack any preceding motivation.

(I also agree with the Gen-ART reviewer that spelling out "the
requirement" more explicitly would be helpful; that suggestion seems to
have gotten lost in the ensuing thread.)