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

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

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.

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

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

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