Summary: essentially ready but with issues to consider before being published
as a proposed standard RFC.

Thanks for addressing the nit from my previous review.

I am not convinced that the document doesn't need more discussion around the points I raised as issues in my previous review.
See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Ragwzpjm_58ydcr5VHqOyrmfw5I/.

I fully understand that you can't completely specify behavior, but your explanations in your response to Roman, and the refinement in the response to me really belong in the draft.