Nothing to add to my earlier review (i.e. Ready with comments).

    Brian

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:57:49 +0000
From: Black, David <david.black at emc.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf at gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>,
<lionel.morand at orange.com> <lionel.morand at orange.com>
CC: draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes.all at ietf.org <draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes.all at ietf.org>, General
Area Review Team <gen-art at ietf.org>, Black, David <david.black at emc.com>

> 1) I suggest that somebody with ECN smarts should glance at it (e.g. David Black).

Last Call on this draft happened while I was on vacation; I’ll try to take a look early next week before the telechat.

Thanks,
--David

From: Kathleen Moriarty [

mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf

 at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:41 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter; <lionel.morand at orange.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes.all at ietf.org; General Area Review Team; Black, David
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01

Brian,

Thank you for your review.  I agree, the shepherd report should be amended to remove the 'updates' language since the extensions
are optional.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com<

mailto:brian.e.carpenter

 at gmail.com>> wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2015-05-25
IETF LC End Date: 2015-06-01
IESG Telechat date:

Summary:  Ready
--------

Comment:
--------

This is a clear and well-written document. I do have two comments, however:
1) I suggest that somebody with ECN smarts should glance at it (e.g. David Black).
2) The shepherd suggests in the writeup that it should formally update RFC 5777.
But since it describes optional extensions to RFC 5777 that are strictly compatible,
I don't think that's right.