Subject: [multipathtcp] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 18:42:04 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-15: 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-mptcp-rfc6824bis/

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

Thanks for everyone who has worked on moving MPTCP onto
the standards track. I'd like to offer particular thanks
to the authors for refraining from making structural changes
to the document: the diff between RFC 6824 and this document
is clean and easy to use.

I found only one very minor editorial nit that you may want to fix if you
need to otherwise revise the document.

§3.7:

>  So far this section has discussed the lost of MPTCP options, either

Nit: "...the loss of..."