Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 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 information).

(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