Re: [pim] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-10: (with COMMENT)

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Martin.

I just uploaded -11 which has resolved John Scudders DISCUSS and intends to answer
all open COMMENTS including yours.

Diff here:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-10.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-11.txt&difftype=--html

Wrt. your feedback:

That last paragraph of 3.3.1 was rewriten with one paragraph from 
John Scutter and one example in a second paragraph at the end from me. This
is now section 3.3.1. It has less of an instructive (may, should) character
and more of a descriptive character, because ultimately, we have a very
simply described, but complex to achieve goal (minimize number of duplicate data packet),
and when trying to achieve this through larger and larger assertsignalling  packets,
the impact of several implementation and user traffic dependending impacts start to overlap.


Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 10:57:49AM -0700, Martin Duke via Datatracker wrote:
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-10: 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-pim-assert-packing/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I found the last paragraph of Section 3.3.1 extremely difficult to parse.
> Perhaps reorganizing it into a series of normative statements?
>