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

From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 23:59:22 -0700

Alexey Melnikov 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I probably would be “Yes”, if I am to finish reading this document before the
telechat.

A couple of small things:

“Appendix E.  Changes from RFC6184”

 - Did you intent to write RFC6824 here?

Section 2.4 uses “DSS”, while section 2.6 uses “DATA_SEQUENCE_SIGNAL”. If I
understood correctly they are the same thing. I suggest you use consistent
terminology.

I agree with Alissa that the meaning of extensibility flag (and its interaction
with versionning) should be clarified.