[ippm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-05: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 03 February 2016 20:38 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160203203827.30031.3663.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:38:27 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/RZRRbwlGF4_cMGzYNZztekwDIQs>
Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-05: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-05: 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-ippm-checksum-trailer/



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

3.2.3, 2nd paragraph: "...OWAMP/TWAMP layer SHOULD treat the
   Checksum Complement as part of the Packet Padding."

The previous paragraph said this put no new requirements on the receiver.
Is the SHOULD here a new requirement, or a statement of fact? (If the
latter, it should not use the 2119 keyword.)

[ippm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Ben Campbell