Subject: [mpls] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 08:17:35 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-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-mpls-flow-ident/

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

I'm uncertain about the archival value of this document in the RFC series as
the document seems to be written rather for wg-internal consumption only;
however, I will not object to its publication.

One additional minor comment in section 5:
CURRENT:
"An example of such a fine grained case might be traffic
   from a specific application, or from a specific application from a
   specific source, particularly if matters related to service level
   agreement or application performance were being investigated."

Besides the duplication nit, I would like to suggest the following small change:
PROPOSED:
"An example of such a fine grained case might be traffic
   belonging to a certain service or from a
   specific source, particularly if matters related to service level
   agreement or application performance were being investigated."

I'd say "service" is less specific than "application" and includes such things
like e.g. a video service that is offered by the ISP.