Ballot for conflict-review-trossen-sfc-name-based-sff
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
No objection on the conflict review. The document itself has a fairly thin security considerations section, that would probably benefit from a reference to the RFC 3986 security considerations ("what a URI resolves to is not necessarily stable", etc.) and some discussion about the extra risk that having a separate Name Resolver component might introduce, what new attack surface that entails, etc.. The writing style also seems rather far removed at times from the prevailing style in the RFC series, though I guess that's mostly the RSE's role to enforce.