[OPSEC] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution-08: (with COMMENT)

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

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution-08: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution/



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

Thanks for replying to my DISCUSS. Now that I understand this does not need to
be interoperable, DISCUSS points no longer apply.

Thanks to Magnus Westerlund for the TSVART review. I note that Magnus's last
message in the thread makes some good (non-DISCUSS) points that do not have a
public reply.

(S4) Is this meant to be an exhaustive list of transports for the URI, or are
they examples?

I wonder if it would be better for the UDP and TCP versions to use an option,
instead of just putting it in the payload.