Subject: [tsvwg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 05:55:20 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12: 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-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/

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

I'm pleased with the changes that Last Call review, but I noticed a
couple of nits that crept into new text.

In this sentence,

    It is extensible and allows to	
 	add a few more PHBs and DSCPs to the Diffserv-intercon scheme.
    
the text would be clearer if it said who was allowed to add PHBs and
DSCPs, or what the process is to do that (which probably makes that
clear) - I'm pretty sure I know that, but I'm not getting that from the
text.
       
It looks like s/RFC5127s/RFC5127's/, to match other usages in the draft.