[mpls] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-09: (with COMMENT)

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

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-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/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-mpls-rfc6374-sfl/



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

- In Section 6, I understand the intent of #5 ("The duration of a second delay
(D in Figure 1 batch must be such
       that all packets from the packets belonging to a first delay
       batch (C in Figure 1)will have been received before the second
       delay batch completes.")

But given that this is a delay measurement, how can we ensure this property? Is
this better formulated as "the sender will not stop sending for D until it
receives feedback for C", or something to that effect?

- Sec 9.1: What does it mean that SPL Index is an "optional convenience"? Is
the sender required to set it properly, but the receiver is free to ignore it
if unneeded? Or is this optional for the sender somehow as well?