Subject: [clue] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-clue-protocol-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:41:16 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-clue-protocol-17: 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-clue-protocol/

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

Section 5.7: I don't understand why the 100-199 range is reserved for a
specific purpose for a future major version rather than having codes in that
range defined now. That is, if it is discovered that delay or incompleteness is
useful to signal, why would establishing support for that necessarily require
some other backwards-incompatible change to the protocol?

Section 8: In addition to Benjamin's question about the version I don't
understand how the schemaRef having minOccurs=0 makes sense. Doesn't it need to
be included?