Subject: [Uta] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:16:19 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email-04: Yes

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-uta-tls-for-email/

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

Thanks for doing this.  While I don’t like this mechanism for making this
update, I understand why, and accept it for this case.

— Section 2 —
Please use the current BCP 14 boilerplate from RFC 8174, and add a normative
reference to that RFC.

— Section 3 —
The text “In Section 4.1, the text should be revised from: “ should be removed
from the third “OLD”, as none of the others have anything like that and it
isn’t part of the old text.

 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

The following are comments from Murray Kucherawy, incoming ART AD.  Murray is
getting an early start on doing reviews, and I’m including his comments into my
ballots during the overlap period before he’s officially an Area Director.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I concur with Radia's review.  I would actually prefer to see RFC8314
completely replaced by a new version.  It's pretty easy to get the XML for that
RFC from the editor, do the search-and-replace, add a "Changes Since" section,
reset acknowledgements as appropriate, update the draft's name and date, and
send it up.  That's pretty much how I did RFC8478bis.  The tracker makes it
easy to diff to the old version so it's clear only the expected changes are
present.