[apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 01 July 2011 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279851F0C88 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FpEL2C2vQzqK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F5F1F0C79 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 046F11ECB422 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:24:20 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:24:17 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110701162416.GB24564@shinkuro.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:24:24 -0000

Dear colleagues,

As usual, a day late and a dollar short, but I have reviewed
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04.  I support its publication.  I have
some items that might conceivably be addressed, but I don't think any
of them is a show-stopper.  I sent nits I observed directly to the WG
draft editors.

First, in section 1.1, we have this:


   The definitions here should be used by IETF standards that want to
   use them.  IETF standards that explicitly want to create different
   definitions for the terms defined here can do so, but the terms
   here should be considered the default for IETF standards after the
   time of publication of this document.  

Obviously, the draft can't constrain what other documents might do.
But it would be nice to encourage other documents, if they're going to
come up with different definitions, to use different words.  If
someone decided to re-define SHOULD at the beginning of their
standards document, we would quite justifiably complain, & I think the
same goes here.  I suggest the following additional sentence: 

    IETF standards that want different definitions are encouraged, for
    clarity's sake, to find terms different to the ones defined here.


Second, why isn't "LDH label" in section 7 instead of section 6,
especially since LDH is also mentioned at the beginning of section 7?

The last sentence of the first paragraph of section 8 says, "It is
likely that additional terms will be added as this document matures."
Presumably, if the draft is published that sentence should be removed.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com