[Dime] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01: (with COMMENT)

["Alissa Cooper" <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01: 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-dime-congestion-flow-attributes/



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

If this means folks are using ECN more then I'm glad to hear it. :)

In Section 5.1 there are three instances of "ECP-IP-Codepoint." I think
these are meant to be "ECN-IP-Codepoint" right?

In Section 6, I had the same thought as Ben. There could be some
sensitivity about the fact that a particular user experienced congestion,
and that's worth calling out.

Comment for the WG: I note that RFC 6733 requires Diameter nodes to be
able to negotiate TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 and TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA
(among other cipher suites) for use with TLS and DTLS. Given the
publication of RFC 7465, those requirements should be revisited.