[P2PSIP] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-21: (with COMMENT)

"Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Sat, 19 March 2016 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietf.org
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B036912D586; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 15:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160319222805.15018.68420.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 15:28:05 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/F9UTMITwJdG4UhRL-u3WehjMHUs>
Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, p2psip@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com
Subject: [P2PSIP] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-21: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 22:28:05 -0000

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-21: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for improving the IANA considerations section! However, Section
9.1 still has a bug that IMHO needs to be corrected. The reserved values
need to be shifted in value by one, because now you have two with the
value 1.

As Alexey said: "The draft has improved, however Section 9.1 still seems
incorrect: if the first bit is reserved, then the first allocated value
must be 2, so all other allocated values should be shifted by 1 bit."

However, I have cleared so that the shepherding AD and the WG can take
care of this. Please make sure you fix this though, as my understanding
is that if you didn't make the change, the protocol would not work as you
intended it to work.