Re: [bfcpbis] call for comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <> Wed, 19 March 2014 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E141A023C for <>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cN1cIWjB7JDl for <>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B9B1A0319 for <>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2459; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395268060; x=1396477660; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=sQI9i7D6XuZJvVFT53zedhrYC50Ylu+pl8TGh+B2dhM=; b=KVfC/1KYuXfx8MEphD3rc5RvJXgrafQAFeddfkM2iNyBUH1+B9GRe/Bt j3wFeMDLmAklLbIKRvk9Tkm1W3gcpybTs7s9Otp/gAG2oyoCMoZL96hi5 2BQ26zfEqTTzzaEn4EHUERkKUqH99ouqtVXa5Vxra8Uz+GrnmlNlDvVVX Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,689,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="311310707"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2014 22:27:39 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2JMRdiH018563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:27:39 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:27:39 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <>
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] call for comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
Thread-Index: AQHPQ8JuxkfRnpJkY0GDUBlVVjTrIQ==
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:27:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] call for comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:27:50 -0000

(as an individual)

I read through the draft in detail. It addresses all the concerns I raised
In addition to the TCP/TLS clarifications requested by Christer, I suggest
the following changes. These are mostly editorial.

Section 5.3.17:
s/should acknowledge/acknowledge
I think it is best to drop the ³should² to avoid confusion with normative
statements. This is also more consistent with the rest of the message
descriptions in this section. Normative language regarding the sending of
request/response messages is specified elsewhere.

Section 6: Transport
I suggest rewording the information note as follows:
Informational note: In practice products are configured to try one
             transport initially and use the other one as a fallback.
             TCP or UDP is chosen as underlying transport depends on type
             product and the nature of the environment it is deployed.
             Appendix B are important to consider.

Informational note: In practice, products are configured to try one
             transport first and use the other transport as a fallback.
             TCP or UDP is chosen as the underlying transport depends on
the type of
             product and the deployment environment. See Appendix B for

Section 6.2
s/Situations Š is described/Situations Š are described

Section 8
s/all requests will use retransmission timer T1/retransmission timer T1
MUST be used for all requests

Section 8.2

Section 16.2
s/The clarification and bug fixes/Clarifications and bug fixes

I¹m not sure what "Non-functional language clarifications² are, but I
don¹t think we want them in the draft :)
Perhaps replace with ³Non-normative language clarifications²?


On 3/4/14, 3:06 PM, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <> wrote:

>As discussed in the session today at IETF 89, this is to officially
>announce a 2-week call for comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-11
>(, due by or
>before March 19, 2014.
>If the draft is perfect as is, please share that comment on the list as
>Thank you,
>bfcpbis mailing list