Those are fine. Especially the pointer to 'winning FAD'.
Deb On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 9:16 AM Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net> wrote: > Hi Deb, > > Thank you for the review. > Pls see inline for replies ... > Ver-20 will address your comments > > > Rgds > Shraddha > > > Juniper Business Use Only > -----Original Message----- > From: Deb Cooley via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: 04 February 2025 22:48 > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org; acee.i...@gmail.com; a...@cisco.com > Subject: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18: > (with COMMENT) > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GkeZ6SOrqyUJRuuZPpTT-rtZ2yGuWsTqoQgAApj6l91Apn9c5WARs8W4XH0tdTf8I4mWCyBuenSAcZy5$ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GkeZ6SOrqyUJRuuZPpTT-rtZ2yGuWsTqoQgAApj6l91Apn9c5WARs8W4XH0tdTf8I4mWCyBuenueE2_d$ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 1, 'elephant flows', I had to look this up, it might be worth a > small explanation. > <SH>added this statement Large high throughput flows are referred to as > "elephant flows". > > Section 5, 'winning FAD', I'm not sure what to think of this. It seems > odd. > Does a particular definition actually 'win'? What happens to the loser > definitions? > <SH> added ref > winning FAD (sec 5.3 <xref target ='RFC9350'/> > > Section 7 or 8: It appears that this might be a bigger opportunity for a > denial of service attack? > <SH> Not sure I understand that comment > > The document refers to RFC 9350 for security consideration and it does not > introduce any new > Attack vectors other than the ones that are defined in 9350. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
