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

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Adrian Farrel ,
    Adrian Farrel ,
    Eliot Lear ,
    draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection@ietf.org,
    rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection-03

The IESG has completed a review of draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection-03
consistent with RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'The DOCSIS(r) Queue
Protection Algorithm to Preserve Low Latency'
as an Informational RFC.

The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in tsvwg,
but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

The IESG would also like the Independent Submissions Editor to review the
comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or
not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both
the ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-briscoe-docsis-q-protection/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection/

The process for such documents is described at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
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.