Subject: [alto] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 22:43:40 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-20: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-alto-performance-metrics/

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

I support Francesca's DISCUSS.

I suggest breaking Section 7 into separate subsections for each request. 
Specifically, the registrations in the first paragraph should be clearly
separated from the creation of the registry that starts below that.

Maybe I'm turning into a dinosaur, but since all of the syntaxes in these
documents are constrained to US-ASCII, I wonder why listing Unicode characters
individually, or ranges of them (e.g., Section 2.1), is preferred to using ABNF.

All of the SHOULDs in this document feel weak to me.  I can't tell, for
example, why an implementer might do anything other than what follows the
SHOULD, which suggests to me that they should be MUSTs.  If there's some reason
to leave the option there, I think some supporting text would be warranted.