Subject: [sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-farrel-sfc-convent-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:13:04 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-farrel-sfc-convent-06: 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-farrel-sfc-convent/

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

Thanks for addressing my discuss by adding a new section on congestion
management! I was still hoping to see more concrete guidance e.g. simlar to
what RFC8085 recommends: "... not sending on average more than one UDP datagram
per RTT to a destination". However, this might not be suitable for all sfc use
cases and therefore the high level guidance as now provided might be sufficient
as well.

-----
Old comment
------
I think this document should update RFC8300 as it does not only register an new
protocol but also changes some of the process for this specific case.