Re: [Detnet] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-12: (with COMMENT)

[Janos Farkas <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Thank you!

Based on our discussion it seems to be better to refer to AQM [RFC 7567] at the end of Section 3.3.2, e.g.,:


"Examples of such techniques include traffic policing and
   shaping functions (e.g., [RFC2475]), separating flows into per-
   flow rate-limited queues, and potentially apply active queue management [RFC 7567].”

Regards,
Janos

-----Original Message-----
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 1:56 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-12: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-12: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-architecture/



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

Thanks for addressing my discuss. One more minor comment: I see the reference to bufferbloat in section 3.2.1.1, however, I guess the reference would actually be even more need in section 3.3.2.

I agree with Alexey and Benjamin that this document should be informational.
Informational documents can also have IETF consensus, so that cannot be the reason to go for PS. However, this document does not specify a protocol or any requirements that are mandatory to implement for interoperability and therefore should not be PS.