[Taps] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 13 September 2017 20:01 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage@ietf.org, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com>, taps-chairs@ietf.org, Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, taps@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150533290212.30455.669282290285389506.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:01:42 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/18zx1L7Cl-NtzBY8KOoLkoSXmIY>
Subject: [Taps] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage/



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

Substantive:

- General: There's a smattering of 2119 keywords in this draft. Other than when
used in direct quotes,I assume they describe pre-existing requirements. If so,
then please use descriptive language without 2119 keywords. (Otherwise, see
Ekr's comment.)

-8, first paragraph:
Doesn't QUIC provide those features "on its own"? I realize it is not in RFC
form yet, but it is standards track.

Editorial:

- Abstract: The abstract should not contain citations.

- 2, first paragraph: "This specification describes an (abstract) interface"
Why is "abstract" in parentheses?

- 3.1, definition of TFO, "allows to immediately hand over":
I suggest either "allows <something> to immediately hand over" or "allows the
immediate handover".

-3.4: I agree with other comments that the UDP/UDP-lite draft should be
included here. There may have been reason to separate them at one time, but
since they are progressing together it no longer seems to make sense. While it
may be inconvenient to recombine them at this point, keeping them separate just
pushes that inconvenience off on the readers.

-4: I find this section very hard to read due to the formatting of the
primitive descriptions. Please consider either using complete sentences, or
reformatting them into something that looks less like a blob of text.

[Taps] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Ben Campbell