IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata-12

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 31 August 2017 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFED1132DF7; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id elf2Yk8V_Moa; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 914C2132D9B; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1265; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1504184543; x=1505394143; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ce6yeIkEJI/s59yuKOC3mluA45IFqE6VQcAUMASkIWs=; b=cqb3CtP28o8KnQEIlizlhR/tQK/yvs9eO4VJjVPd4r9eXadzSLTESeMI IMONFglU6B22FtKeOcGfjmWOOAQelwdGlS8DjTMvu8K7mLKsHnS5yHlvn IG0lS4MUyr0kPwlGY7XU5vaV6CJsYdNdmiWvpFPs/XRxHhmI6H3N75qpY w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BsAQBYCKhZ/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBlF6pVIVHAoRLFAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkGOEEQC0ZXBg0IAQGKLbBki0YBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBASGDKoNQgWMrgn2KaQWgb5RRi1OHG41SiHM2IYENMiEIHBVJhx0+iwIBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,453,1498521600"; d="scan'208";a="655330196"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Aug 2017 13:02:18 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7VD2IDc002017; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:02:18 GMT
Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata-12
To: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
Cc: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata.all@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <150287547583.12471.9085655210334710687@ietfa.amsl.com> <FDCFFA8C-8828-4578-A66E-A1AD7FF9BDC9@fh-muenster.de> <1a39dff3-55a9-fe1d-7e19-a0fbd0b2751b@restena.lu> <F05D0F1F-47E2-4477-BFD9-F0119A4609FC@fh-muenster.de> <f4d121e4-44f5-e85d-98b1-bbea317a7539@cisco.com> <5CEB294C-AAC8-4F03-901D-487CD62BB491@fh-muenster.de> <41a1e8f1-2398-4d94-7021-638acdd58eb7@cisco.com> <1FFDADBA-4132-4D3B-B68C-A89A50AF1E24@fh-muenster.de>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <cf445d0b-0de5-ca99-a3bb-53403f9d3c7a@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:02:18 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1FFDADBA-4132-4D3B-B68C-A89A50AF1E24@fh-muenster.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5fPTbtv-x8DdHaUYjCgc8nRHDRU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:02:30 -0000

>>>> Also, I don't see the value of the last sentence in this paragraph, especially with RFC2119 MAY.
>>>>
>>>>    This section defines several stream schedulers.  The stream
>>>>    schedulers may behave differently depending on whether user message
>>>>    interleaving has been negotiated for the association or not.  An
>>>>    implementation MAY implement any subset of them.
>>> During the review the question was brought up which scheduler have to be implemented
>>> by an implementation. This sentence was add to address it.
>>> If you want, I can remove it.
>> The point is that the MAY is that sentence doesn't mean anything.
>> Maybe you mean:
>>
>> An implementation MUST implement at least one stream scheduler.
> That would require an implementation to implement at least one of
> the ones being listed. You are right in the sense that an implementation
> MUST implement at least one stream scheduler, but the original text
> allows that one not to be specified in this document.
>
> Are you saying that an implementation MUST implement one of list defined
> by this document?
I'm saying that "An implementation MAY implement any subset of them." as 
a sentence doesn't make sense.
Are we going in circle here?

Regards, B.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email