[tcpm] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 04 July 2020 23:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Murray Kucherawy 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>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <159390708628.10432.2317922664759962417@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 16:58:06 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/jNTsLfo8xGdboEz8ikj92F1S9lM>
Subject: [tcpm] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: 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-rto-consider/



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

I note the shepherd and GenART review comments about the requirements language
at the end of Section 2, and I don't find it to be problematic generally given
this passed WGLC in multiple working groups (a wise move, by the way) and a
proper IETF Last Call.

These triple hyphens throughout the document are supposed to be em dashes, I
presume?

[tcpm] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-i… Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker