Subject: [tcpm] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 23:53:56 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-14: 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-tcpm-rack/

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

Thanks for this work.  It's interesting stuff!

Please expand DUPACK on first use.

Section 2 is curious.  As I read it, it establishes a normative recommendation
to use it, but doesn't update either of its antecedents (RFC 5681 or RFC 6675)
such that someone reading those might be referred to this.

---

From: Yuchung Cheng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:53:52 -0800

Thank you for your review. We'll expand the DUPACK on first use.

The thought on the normative reference is nice. The document is related to
but does not modify/update the two RFCs hence we think it's better to avoid
confusion. i.e. readers of the other RFCs are not required to be aware of
this draft.  We will add more clarification text on the relation of the two
RFCs in section 9.3 as well.