Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs a YES. Has enough positions to pass.
Comment (2006-10-25) 
> 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.
Comment (2006-10-25)
Normative reference to draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-padding may cause delay.
Comment (2006-10-25)
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.
Comment (2006-10-25)
The abstract is very long. I recommend sticking with just the first paragraph,
and moving the rest to an introduction section (eliminating redundant
information).
Comment (2006-10-24)
COMMENT
The Abstract seem a little bit long. Maybe it can be reworded to
include less of the information that is also in the Introduction.
datatracker.ietf.org