Subject: [Lsr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 22:56:04 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-11: 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-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator/

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

A note for the IESG:

This is in the shepherd writeup:

-- BEGIN --
    (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
        Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
        proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page
        header?

Proposed Standard.
-- END --

As I said on another document on this week's docket, this is increasingly
common.  There are three questions being asked, but only one is being answered,
and not the most important one at that.  I'd really like it if this started
getting caught someplace in the review process before IESG Evaluation.  Or, if
we don't actually care about the answer anymore, we should simplify or remove
the question.