IETF conflict review for draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection
conflict-review-briscoe-docsis-q-protection-00

Yes

Martin Duke

No Objection

Erik Kline
Lars Eggert
Roman Danyliw
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
(Alvaro Retana)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

Martin Duke
Yes
Comment (2022-04-08) Sent 
This document is adjacent to the L4S work in TSVWG.

One nit:
In (1.2), a definition refers to "marking all the packet's bytes." I'm not sure what the authors mean; perhaps s/bytes/ECN bits?

Reviewing the pseudocode in detail was not necessary for the conflict review, and I did not do so.
Erik Kline
No Objection
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent