Problem Statement and Requirements for Increased Accuracy in Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Feedback
draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-08

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2015-02-17 for -07)
No email
send info
This text:

5.2.  Using Other Header Bits

   Any proposal to use such bits would need to check the likelihood that
   some middleboxes might discard or 'normalize' the currently unused
   flag bits or a non-zero Urgent Pointer when the Urgent Flag is
   cleared.  Assignment of any of these bits would then require an IETF
   standards action.
   
doesn't read quite right to me. Just reversing the logic, I'm getting "no IETF standards action is required unless middleboxes are twiddling the bits you're using for your proposal". Is that what you mean? Or is this just while experimenting?

(Ted Lemon) Yes

(Martin Stiemerling) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2015-02-19 for -07)
No email
send info
In the ack section, there is a statement that says,
   "The views expressed here are solely those of the
   authors."

I know this is stated as to ensure it is not necessarily the views of the sponsoring project.  If this will be listed as having consensus (not done yet), should this statement be reworded to avoid conflict between the consensus statement?

This is just a non-blocking comment for the AD to consider.