Re: [bfcpbis] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13: (with DISCUSS)

["Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>]

Jari,

Following up on this email (and building a growing to-do list)....

------ Original Message ------
From: "Jari Arkko" <[e-mail]>
To: "The IESG" <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; 
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Sent: 3/5/2015 7:01:39 AM
Subject: [bfcpbis] Jari Arkko's Discuss on 
draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13: (with DISCUSS)

>Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13: Discuss
>
>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 
>http://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:
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>DISCUSS:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Thanks for the hard work on this protocol. I have some comments, based 
>on
>a review by Suresh Krishnan, that I think should be addressed before
>final approval of the document.
>
>First, Section 5.1 should be clear that when used over a reliable
>transport, not only should the F flag be ignore but that the fragment
>fields (last four bytes) are not in the packet.

Agreed.  This could be made clear by revising Figure 5.  I'll add that 
to the list.


>Second, Section 6.2.3 should be clear that the header accompanies all
>fragments. As a result, the current formula for calculating the number 
>of
>fragments is probably wrong. This too should be updated.

The formula was revised in the draft posted a day or so ago, and I noted 
in my response to the list that it needs further clarity.  We'll close 
on this one soon.

Paul