Subject: [rmcat] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 23:28:04 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-11: 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-rmcat-sbd/

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

Thanks for everyone's work on this document, and especially to those who ran the
preliminary experiments. This sounds like an interesting technique. I have two
minor comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2:

>  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>  "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
>  14 [RFC2119] RFC2119 [RFC2119] RFC8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when,
>  they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

This is almost, but not quite, the boilerplate defined in RFC 8174. Please
consider fixing it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.1 says "Usually M=N", while §2.2 recommends N=50 and M=30. These statements
seem in conflict.