Subject: [mpls] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 20:33:20 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: 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-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path/

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

I would be fine keeping the to-be-deleted text explaining alternatives
that were not selected, especially if it was moved to an appendix. If
anyone ever wonders about the alternatives, that would mean they didn't
have to dig through e-mail archives to see what was considered and why
the alternatives were rejected.

I'm not understanding why 

   When the MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band by setting the
   Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM query to "Out-of-band Response
   Requested", and the URO is present, the responder SHOULD send the
   response back to querier on the specified destination UDP port at the
   specified destination IP address contained in the URO.
   
is a SHOULD. Could you help me with that?