Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
A bit like Stephen's Comment...
Section 3 contains to "SHOULD NOT" directives. This is an implication
that these directives can be varied. Do you want to describe how and
why, or do you want to change to "MUST NOT"?
Obviously, these "SHOULD NOTs" also impact the security discussion.
I don't get why the 3rd party AS stuff is SHOULD NOT and not
I think it'd be better to s/should not/ought not/ in section 5 to
avoid possible 2119 confusion.
Thanks for addressing my issue with the Security Considerations section.
I agree with Pete's DISCUSS on this document.
I think "militating" should be "mitigating" in the abstract.