[CCAMP] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-08: (with COMMENT)

Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 28 November 2020 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23D63A0836; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 18:03:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <160652900519.23046.12220562052998845907@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 18:03:25 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/dJU4ZXtGBwPzYQ9FRornYxXjGLs>
Subject: [CCAMP] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 02:03:26 -0000

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-08: No Objection

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:


[[ nits ]]

[ section 3 ]

* "min-slot-width-factor" and "max-slot-width-factor" could each have their
  description be simplified to refer only their own definition (as opposed
  to the shared duplicated text).

  Also, I'm not sure how to read "...of the slot width , granularity,".
  Should that just be "...of the slot width granularity,"?

* "this constraints is reported" could use a grammar fix. I'm guessing
  "this constraint is reported"?