Re: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05: (with COMMENT)

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Spencer,

I think that text dates back to before we saw widespread deployment of the
control word. At that time, it is true that some concerns had been
expressed. Since then, no particular problems have (to my knowledge)
actually been encountered in the field.

Cheers,
Andy


On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Spencer Dawkins <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-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-pals-vccv-for-gal/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A minor question ... I was somewhat surprised to see this statement.
>
> 1.  Introduction
>
>    o  Some operators are concerned that the inclusion of the PW CW will
>       increase the PW packet size.
>
> It seems like the working group would know whether that's true (so,
> something like "The increase in PW packet size due to the inclusion of
> the PW CW will cause problems X, Y, and Z"), or it's not.
>
> Is it true? If so, the issue isn't that operators believe there's a
> problem, but that there's really a problem.
>
>
>