Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-17: 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-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Wesley Eddy for his TSVART review. I think this specification is OK to publish from tranpsport protocol perspective. However, this specification deprecates tcpOptions IE without updating (or obsolating) RFC 5102, so I am unsure about the operational issues and usage of the new IEs when we have tcpOption IE. Hence supporting Paul's discuss. One question - - Section 4.1: it says "This approach allows an observer to export any observed TCP option even if it does support that option and without requiring updating a mapping table" Do you mean "even if it does *not* support that option"? _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
