[Detnet] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-09: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-09: 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/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-detnet-bounded-latency/



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

I don't understand this sentence in the introduction:

"It disregards the in-band packets that can be part of the stream such as OAM
and necessary re-transmissions"

Are you referring to retransmissions of user data? If so, that sounds like an
important consideration for latency bounds!

Thanks to Yoshi for the TSVART review.

Nits:

(2) s/PROEF/PREOF

(6.6) s/is the same cycle/in the same cycle (or maybe I just don't understand
this sentence?)