Re: [xrblock] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-02: (with COMMENT)

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 02 August 2016 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E8312D5A2; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 05:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qRVBOwZxaeCj; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 05:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EA6112D5A1; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 05:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:630:40:f00:12dd:b1ff:feca:b79b] (port=55586) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1bUYFb-00057t-84; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:52:47 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160801214553.2955.12914.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:52:38 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4559BD4-02D8-4369-ADFD-4FEE79959948@csperkins.org>
References: <20160801214553.2955.12914.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/HcC-yjjzPyj6eVeE1ZGqoYEF0zA>
Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard@ietf.org, xrblock-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-02: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xrblock/>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:40:31 -0000

> On 1 Aug 2016, at 22:45, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-02: 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-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have a few minor comments:
> 
> -1.1, 3rd paragraph, first sentence:
> Is the "MUST" a new normative requirement, or a statement of fact
> concerning 7003? If the later, please consider restating without the 2119
> keyword.

It might be clearer if the “MUST” was changed to “needs to”.

> - 2, last paragraph: 
> "RECOMMENDS" also seems like a statement of fact.
> Please expand “GMin" on first use.

That sentence can be deleted. The later text (“Threshold”, in Section 3.2) has the appropriate reference to RFC 3611 and explains Gmin correctly.

> -3.2, definition of “I": Why define "I=01" then forbid it's use?

I guess this is a copy-and-paste error. Can be removed.

> -5, last sentence: Is the "MAY" a statement of fact?

Yes, changing “MAY” to “can” would be clearer.

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/