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.

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes

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 steering group member) Yes

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

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.