[tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with COMMENT)
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 20 February 2019 23:18 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2851F130E9C; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:18:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb@ietf.org, David Black <david.black@dell.com>, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, david.black@dell.com, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <155070472609.31486.14832014530010443987.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:18:46 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/bPP6djSyyeCKn_AxfZuVdTj2i6w>
Subject: [tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 23:18:46 -0000
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: 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-tsvwg-le-phb/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- = Section 3 = "An LE PHB SHOULD NOT be used for a customer's "normal Internet" traffic nor should packets be "downgraded" to the LE PHB instead of being dropped, particularly when the packets are unauthorized traffic." I would recommend against mixing normative and non-normative keywords for a sequence of behaviors listed in the same sentence. I can't determine why one of these is normative and the other not. "There is no intrinsic reason to limit the applicability of the LE PHB to any particular application or type of traffic." I get the idea of not wanting to imply any kind of limitation, but wouldn't use cases of applying this to real-time traffic be pretty rare? That seems like a caveat worth explaining. = Section 15 = RFC 8174 should be a normative reference.
- [tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-iet… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft… Bless, Roland (TM)