Subject: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 06:50:57 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-05: Yes

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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs/

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

Thank you for working through my discuss (and Alia's comment), which was

---

I'm piling on Barry's Comment as a Discuss, which should be easy to
discuss, but ... in this text:

3.  Configuring the use of retransmissions

   Implementations of this specification MAY provide a configuration
   option to enable or disable the use of such potentially infinite
   retransmissions.  If the implementation provides such a configuration
   option, it MUST be able to enable/disable retransmissions on a per-
   interface basis.
   
You can tell me that it's a LAN, so the transport ADs can go back to
sleep, but I was surprised that this configuration option was a MAY. 

I was also surprised that there was no guidance about the default setting
(on or off), but let's start with the MAY.

IP does get tunneled to new and exciting places ... and infinite
retransmissions are infinite ...

---

Extreme nit alert:

   In general, the delay may be unacceptable in some
   scenarios.
   
would make more sense to me without the "in general".