Skip to main content

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

Yes

(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ted Lemon)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)

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

Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -07) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2015-02-17 for -07) Unknown
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 Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -07) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-02-19 for -07) Unknown
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.