Re: [ippm] publication request for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-03.txt

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

At 03:59 AM 2/18/2010, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>   (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
>         informative? Are there normative references to documents that
>         are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
>         state?
>
>Yes, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets.  This draft has an ETA
>of Q1/2010.

I concluded (when looking at the latest update) that draft*reflect-octets
was an Informative reference. Although there are some interactions
identified, it's possible to implement draft*session-cntrl compliant
implementations without ever looking at draft*reflect-octets.

So, I moved draft*reflect-octets to the Informative list, but
will move it back if others feel that was a mistake. One citation
to consider is below (from section 3.1). Other citations describe
reflect-octets as "nice to have".

Al

    If the Control-Client has selected the Reflect Octets feature
    [I-D.ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets] in combination with the
    Individual Session Control feature (after the Server identified its
    capability), AND utilizes the feature to insert a locally-specified
    request number in the Request-TW-Session command, THEN the Control
    Client MAY send more than one Request-TW-Session command to a given
    Server without waiting for the corresponding Accept-Session message.
    In such a case the Access-Session response reflects the locally-
    specified request number.  Note that when the Reflect Octets feature
    is being used all Request-TW-Session command and Accept-Session
    responses MUST include the locally-specified request number.