Subject: [aqm] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-pie-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 16:51:27 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-aqm-pie-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-pie/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Thanks to the IPR declaring folks for not using the term
"standard" in their declaration. (I first looked at one of
the earlier ones [1] that did say that, and I was about to
start my usual whine when I noticed the most recent one [2]
doesn't have that problem:-)

   [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2123/
   [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2540/

- Seems odd to mention one specific vendor in the security
considerations section. Why is that important to include?

---

From: "Rong Pan (ropan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:44 +0000

You are right, I will remove the specific vendor.

Thanks,

Rong