Subject: [tsvwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 21:10:35 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-06: 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-ecn-experimentation/

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

Section 3 ends with the following text:

   Additional minor changes remove other mentions of the ECN nonce and
   implications that ECT(1) is intended for use by the ECN nonce; the
   specific text updates are omitted for brevity.

I'm not sure I follow what's meant here. Is this basically saying "there are
other, less substantive edits required to RFC 3168, but those changes are left
as an exercise for the reader"?

[Sorry for the additional noise, but I noticed one more issue that you'll want
to correct]

Section 9 says "See Appendix B.1 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id] for discussion
of alternatives to the ECN nonce." I beleive that this should refer to Appendix
C.1 rather than Appendix B.1.