Subject: [tram] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tram-stun-path-data-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:30:17 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tram-stun-path-data-03: 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 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-tram-stun-path-data/

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

I agree with Alissa's comments. In addition:

- Is there any expected interaction between this and the ongoing 5245bis
work?

- 3, last paragraph: "distinguish STUN responses from the re-transmitted
   requests."
I think you mean to distinguish the response to one request from a
response to a retransmitted request. But it sounds like you mean to
distinguish the response from the request itself.

-4 : resends of the same request:
you’ve used the term retransmission so far. I assume this means the
same—any reason not to be consistent?