[tcpm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-17: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 31 July 2020 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2993A0D2D; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>, nsd.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.12.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <159623782505.2762.7104582032416395434@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:23:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/g3IyMemzQs2ZSed6r4J3T3-EiKY>
Subject: [tcpm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 23:23:47 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-17: 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:


Thank you for the updates; they seem to address the core topics I raised and found
the appropriate places to do so (even when I did not) -- I may have to reference this
document when giving authors an example of the degree of interpretation available
to them when responding to IESG (or, really, any) comments.

Having said that, "a healthy amount of randomness" is perhaps not very clear guidance
in terms of how much is "healthy", but I recognize the goal of not being overly prescriptive,
and am reluctant to suggest additional changes.