Re: [tcpm] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-14: (with COMMENT)

[Yuchung Cheng <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for your review. We'll expand the DUPACK on first use.

The thought on the normative reference is nice. The document is related to
but does not modify/update the two RFCs hence we think it's better to avoid
confusion. i.e. readers of the other RFCs are not required to be aware of
this draft.  We will add more clarification text on the relation of the two
RFCs in section 9.3 as well.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:53 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-14: 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-rack/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for this work.  It's interesting stuff!
>
> Please expand DUPACK on first use.


> Section 2 is curious.  As I read it, it establishes a normative
> recommendation
> to use it, but doesn't update either of its antecedents (RFC 5681 or RFC
> 6675)
> such that someone reading those might be referred to this.
>
>
>
>