Ballot for draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS point.
3.2.3, 2nd paragraph: "...OWAMP/TWAMP layer SHOULD treat the Checksum Complement as part of the Packet Padding." The previous paragraph said this put no new requirements on the receiver. Is the SHOULD here a new requirement, or a statement of fact? (If the latter, it should not use the 2119 keyword.)
This document lacks sufficient justification for why the checksum trailer is needed. I would suggest a brief description of when this approach is needed.
Al morton did the ops dir review.