[ippm] Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-protocol-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Roman,

I've tried to address your DISCUSS the following way for V-22 (hoping not to have created another Discuss):

The Setup Request/Response message PDU SHALL be organized as follows (here and in all following code figures coded by programming language C [C-Prog]):

Informative Refs:

[C-Prog]
    "ISO/IEC 9899:2024 Information technology-Programming languages-C", <https://www.iso.org/standard/82075.html>.

The latter points to the 2024 version of C. My take is, that C isn't normative (I'm not a programmer and I excuse, if I mistake that).

Regards,

Ruediger

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Juni 2025 15:41
An: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Betreff: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-protocol-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-protocol-21: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-protocol/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(revised for -21)

** Section 5.2, 6.1, 7.1, 7.2 The CODE blocks in these sections looks like
C-programming language data structures.  Please cite the C programming language
as a normative reference (maybe C99, ISO/IEC 9899:1999)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Lars Eggert for the GENART review.

Thank you for addressing the first point of my DISCUSS feedback in -21.

** Section 1.  Editorial.
   Apart from measurement functionality, the UDPSTP security features
   have been developed following guidance given by the IETF Security
   Area and the resulting specification is compliant with state-of-the-
   art security implementations.

Consider if this text is needed as it might not age well.

** Section 2.
   The goal is to harmonize the specified IP-Layer Capacity metric and
   method across the industry, and this protocol supports the
   specifications of IETF

What does it mean to "support the specifications of the IETF"?  Is it that it
implements the metric of RFC9097 (as already said in Section 1)?



_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]