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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

the explanation below make sense  - could you add a few words along  
these lines to the introduction?

Thanks,
Lars

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
>
>
>
>