Subject: [Captive-portals] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 23:18:02 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: 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-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis/

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

Nice work.  A couple of minor things:

In Section 2, paragraph 2, it says the operator "SHOULD ensure that the URIs
provisioned by each method are equivalent".  Does "equivalent" here mean
"identical", or just "synonymous"?

In Sections 2.1 and 2.2, the lists are bulleted and the names being described
are delimited by colons.  I suggest the same be done for 2.3.

> Thanks IANA!

RFC8126 should've required this of all documents.