Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

At 02:31 AM 5/4/2009, Lars Eggert wrote:
>the explanation below make sense  - could you add a few words along
>these lines to the introduction?
>
>Thanks,
>Lars

I've addressed all of Lars' comments, and added a few additional
clarifications (to address possible Alfred Hoenes-class Errata
before we get to that stage of development).

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-01.txt

This should move us to the next step.

thanks and regards,
Al


>On 2009-5-2, at 21:47, Al Morton wrote:
>
>>Hi Lars,
>>
>>Thanks for your comments.
>>
>>The final wording might benefit from
>>an exchange on this one in particular:
>>
>>At 03:58 PM 4/27/2009, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>>...Section 4.1., paragraph 1:
>>>>   This section describes REQUIRED extensions to the behavior of the
>>>>   TWAMP Sender.
>>>
>>>  Section 2 said that this entire draft specifies OPTIONAL
>>>  functionality.   This section says that the following extensions are
>>>  REQUIRED. That's a bit of a mismatch. Either this entire document is
>>>  now required to implement TWAMP, or the extensions are OPTIONAL, but
>>>  implementations that chose to implement them need to do these.
>>>Please
>>>  make this more clear.
>>
>>This mode of operation is OPTIONAL of course.  But, once the
>>Server and Control-Client have agreed to use this mode,
>>then the Session-Sender and the Session-Reflector MUST
>>conform to the provisions of this mode (operate using the
>>Unauthenticated packet format). What seems to be missing
>>in RFC 2119 is a "CONDITIONALLY REQUIRED" term.
>>
>>So, here's a paragraph I suggest to add to section 4:
>>
>>This section describes OPTIONAL extensions. When the Server
>>has identified the ability to support the mixed security mode,
>>the Control-Client has selected the mixed security mode in its Set- 
>>Up-Response,
>>and the Server responds with a zero Accept field in the Server-Start
>>message,
>>then these extensions are conditionally REQUIRED.
>>
>>It will be good to sort this out, because we'll need this
>>wording in other TWAMP features.
>>
>>Al
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>