[tsvwg] Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum-10: (with COMMENT)

[Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum-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-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum/



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

I support Deb's and Paul's DISCUSS.

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
[RFCXXXX]. Perhaps a note to the RFC Editor is needed to replace XXXX with the
assigned RFC number.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool) so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 8, paragraph 11
> r points have been addressed in an appropriate way. 9. Security Consideratio
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb "appropriately" to avoid
wordiness.