Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-19: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing my discuss points. The resolution looks good. However, I have small regret that the following comments were not addressed which I believe would add more clarity to the specification. # Section 2.4: I would like to have rational behind the two mode of operations. what are the pros and cons and when would an implementer select one over another? if this is written somewhere else then having a point would be great benefit. # Section 2.4.1: The failure correction due to the expected bandwidth under estimation, where loss seems to be an indication, seems like a serious matter and but still there is no normative language requirements on the reporting the loss. I wonder how useful this could be. If the reporting is that important to have a note in this specification then it is better to use normative langues to enforce it. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
