Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

( Lars Eggert ) Yes

( Sam Hartman ) (was No Objection) Yes

( Mark Townsley ) Yes

Comment (2006-10-25 for -)
The abstract is very long. I recommend sticking with just the first paragraph,
and moving the rest to an introduction section (eliminating redundant

Jari Arkko No Objection

Comment (2006-10-25 for -)
> Some protocols may require additional packets after a loss to detect
> it promptly (e.g., TCP loss detection using duplicate
> acknowledgments).  Such a protocol SHOULD wait until sufficient data
> and window space is available so that it will be able to transmit
> enough data after the probe to trigger the loss detection mechanism
> in the event of a lost probe.

It would be useful to have some additional suggested
parameters that guide how long such wait should be.

( Ross Callon ) No Objection

( Brian Carpenter ) (was Discuss) No Objection

( Bill Fenner ) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-25 for -)
Normative reference to draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-padding may cause delay.

( Ted Hardie ) No Objection

( Russ Housley ) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-24 for -)

  The Abstract seem a little bit long.  Maybe it can be reworded to
  include less of the information that is also in the Introduction.

( Cullen Jennings ) No Objection

( Jon Peterson ) No Objection

( Dan Romascanu ) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-25 for -)
I like the way this document (especially section 7) deals with operational and
initial deployment considerations, analyzing carefully the impact of the usage
of the discovery method in the Internet.

( Magnus Westerlund ) No Objection

( David Kessens ) (was Discuss) Abstain