Subject: [Lsr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 04:05:21 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03: 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-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/

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

Based on the TSV-ART review (Thanks Yoshi!) and the information provided in the
shepherd write-up, I understand that this document intends to "fix" a specific
errata. However, there are  IPPM RFCs for each of these metrics that provide
further insights on how the calculate them correctly, e.g. rfc3393 IP Packet
Delay Variation. I will not block publication on this doc but I would still
welcome and recommend if the respective references could be added to provide at
least some guidance instead of just declaring calculation out of scope.