[manet] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Wed, 05 July 2017 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: manet@ietf.org
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF4C12EB8E; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com, Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>, manet-chairs@ietf.org, bebemaster@gmail.com, manet@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149926781216.19195.982371594232223754.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 08:16:52 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/zyBO022qzuvt6sOf0aVGDIaPxV4>
Subject: [manet] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 15:16:52 -0000

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06: 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-manet-rfc5444-usage/



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

I support Ben's non-DISCUSS.
The RFC2119 language usage feels odd, I think that people will do the right
thing.

Issue:
Section 1.3 (Status of this document) and Section 2 (Terminology) are on page 7
- this is about a 3rd of the way through the document -- the into and history
are useful and interesting, but I feel it might be nice to re-order the
sections so that the status and terminology are higher (esp. the Status bit).
I've balloted No Objection, so feel free to ignore this :-)

I have a minor nit,  you might want to fix if if doing any other edits:

Section 1.2.1 - Packet / Message Format
O: "... a packet transmission following a successful packet reception is by
design of a new packet that may include all, some, or none..." P: "... a packet
transmission following a successful packet reception is by design a new packet
that may include all, some, or none..." C: Removed the extra "of"