[tcpm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-10: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-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/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-tcpm-2140bis/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Abstract --
Nothing critical, but, the abstract is mostly cut & paste of the introduction.
Could it be made more concise ?

-- Section 1 --
"as often used in the World-Wide Web", references are really outdated and we
may expect/hope that H3/QUIC will represent soon the majority of the
connections.

"TCP segments having the same host-pair experience the same path properties"
does this assumption stand in an ECMP world ? A reference to section 8.1 would
be useful.

-- Section 8.1 --
"e.g., the connections could be given the same IPv6 flow label" suggest to add
a reference to RFC 6437

== NITS ==

-- Section 2 --
I am always puzzled by the use of BCP 14 boilerplate for an informational
document, but, no need to change/reply.