Re: [dtn-interest] Review for TCP CL

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

Le 2012-08-28 10:35, Scott, Keith L. a écrit :
> Looks good.  A few quick comments:
>
> Section 1
>
> Second Paragraph
>
> "...(CLA) to send and receive bundles using an underlying internet
> protocol." -- This isn't quite true; the CLA can in fact use an
> underlying link (or even, I suppose, raw physical) service.  This IS
> brought out better in section 2.1 where the CLA '...sends and receives
> bundles utilizing the service of some 'native' link, network, or
> internet protocol.' Maybe Section1 paragraph2 could pretty much reflect
> this:
>
> "...(CLA) to send and receive bundles using the service of some 'native'
> link, network, or internet protocol."

ok, fixed.

> Third Paragraph
>
> "...the TCPCL reside above the transport layer, i.e., at the application
> layer."
>
>              Would you consider:
>
> "...the TCPCL reside above the transport layer of the Internet model,
> i.e., at the application layer."
>
> I think the figure does a good job of showing the relationship; but
> assigning BP to a 'layer' in the Internet model is always tricky and a
> little extra verbosity might help.

Per Vin't follow-up comment, I fixed that with: "In particular, when BP 
is using TCP as its bearer with TCPCL as its convergence layer, both BP 
and TCPCL reside at the application layer of the Internet model."

> Section 4.2
>
> "...the magic string is to provide a some protection..." -- '...a
> some...' needs fixing.

ok, fixed.

> The 'should' in 'This negotiation should proceed in the following
> manner:' should be SHOULD?

Actually it should be MUST because things will completely break if you 
don't follow this. I can't think of any exception case.

> "Bundle refusal to interrupt transmission of a bundle may only be used
> iff both peers indicate support for it in their contact header."
>
>              Maybe reword as:
>
> "The bundle refusal capability may only be used iff both peers..."
>
>              Or
>
> "The capability that allows a receiver to refuse reception of a bundle
> may only be used iff both peers..."

ok, fixed using your first suggestion.

> Authors' Addresses:
>
> Does somebody have a more recent address for Mike Demmer?

I don't...

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca