Subject: [tsvwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 17:00:26 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme-09: 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-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme/

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

I support Mirja's discuss, and extend it to mention that the inclusion of
license language other than that in the Trust Legal Provisions (see the
copyright notice boilerplate) is generally not allowed in RFCs.

I agree with Ekr's and Adam's comments about the normative reference for the
TinyMT32 PRNG. I hope the answer is not that the code in Appendix A is
normative; as Adam mentioned we've learned from experience (RFC 6716) that
normative code is sub-optimal for the IETF standards process as it stands today.