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 17:01:51 -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 discuss point 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.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:58:10 -0500

> On Oct 10, 2018, at 7:01 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Replying to self: I just noticed Adam’s response to Mirja, which seems to allow the use of BSD-style license text for code blocks.