[alto] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-04: Discuss

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul said:

> I think that SHOULD can be a MUST. Although one could question the 2119 usage
as it seems to be a directive to a document author and not a protocol action.
So I would also be okay with lowercasing this.

I'm ambivalent about the first sentence, but I concur strongly with the second;
use of BCP 14 language to establish a requirement against some future document
seems quite unconventional to me.  Can we talk about why this is necessary
and/or appropriate?


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

A minor suggestion: In Section 5, include the table of initial values after
you've defined the required fields.