Subject: [tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:18:46 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: 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-tsvwg-le-phb/

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

= Section 3 =

"An LE PHB SHOULD NOT be used for a customer's "normal Internet"
   traffic nor should packets be "downgraded" to the LE PHB instead of
   being dropped, particularly when the packets are unauthorized
   traffic."

I would recommend against mixing normative and non-normative keywords for a
sequence of behaviors listed in the same sentence. I can't determine why one of
these is normative and the other not.

"There is no intrinsic reason to limit the applicability of the LE PHB
   to any particular application or type of traffic."

I get the idea of not wanting to imply any kind of limitation, but wouldn't use
cases of applying this to real-time traffic be pretty rare? That seems like a
caveat worth explaining.

= Section 15 =

RFC 8174 should be a normative reference.