[multipathtcp] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-15: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 16 May 2019 01:42 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF0E1201C7; Wed, 15 May 2019 18:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis@ietf.org, Philip Eardley <philip.eardley@bt.com>, mptcp-chairs@ietf.org, philip.eardley@bt.com, multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <155797092483.30591.13765611796234048129.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 18:42:04 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/HppObsnVg3CZs6ly-kuW2gOUh4E>
Subject: [multipathtcp] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/multipathtcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 01:42:11 -0000
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-15: 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-mptcp-rfc6824bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for everyone who has worked on moving MPTCP onto the standards track. I'd like to offer particular thanks to the authors for refraining from making structural changes to the document: the diff between RFC 6824 and this document is clean and easy to use. I found only one very minor editorial nit that you may want to fix if you need to otherwise revise the document. §3.7: > So far this section has discussed the lost of MPTCP options, either Nit: "...the loss of..."
- [multipathtcp] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft… Adam Roach via Datatracker