[Taps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Fri, 07 September 2018 14:49 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: taps@ietf.org
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85ACD126CB6; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 07:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-taps-minset@ietf.org, Theresa Enghardt <theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de>, taps-chairs@ietf.org, theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de, taps@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153633176053.28971.1270878060532478767.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2018 07:49:20 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/D3fFLN931MMKZU_McCQ-EKuGAN0>
Subject: [Taps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "IETF Transport Services \(TAPS\) Working Group" <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2018 14:49:21 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-taps-minset-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-minset/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rereading this doc again, I still have a couple of mostly editorial comments (however, none of them are critical in any way): 1) In the terminology section I think "Transport Service Instance" is actually never used in this doc and could therefore be removed. Please also double-check if service and feature is used coherently; I thought there were one or two cases where I would have expected to see feature instead of service. And finally Connection Group is explain there, however, given it is a new term and important concept, I would recommend to introduce it anyway separately in the intro as well. 2) Not sure if the paragraph in the intro about "one-sided" deployment is needed there, given that this doc does not/should not really talk about any deployment considerations for an taps system. 3) In section 3 I find this sentence a bit confusing: "The described transport system can be implemented over TCP." This sentence leaves open if other protocols can be implemented as well. However, I guess what you actually what to say is something like "Any configuration based the described minimum set of transport feature can always be realized over TCP but also gives the transport system flexibility to choose another transport if implemented." Or something like this. I think a clarification would be helpful to make clear that there is no direct dependency on TCP. 4) I personally still think that having this example decision tree in section 3.1 puts to much emphasis on this specific example (that "only" covers TCP, SCTP, and UDP(-Lite)) and I would rather move it to the appendix (or maybe create an own subsection somehow). 5) In section 3.1 the paragraph starting with "Once a connection is created..." seems redundant with section 3.2.1 and could potentially be just removed. 6) sec 3.3.1: "Note that applications sending unreliable data without congestion control should themselves perform congestion control in accordance with [RFC2914]." I guess the better reference is RFC8085 (if this sentence is needed at all). 7) Why is "Configure checksum usage" (only) applicable to individual connections?
- [Taps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ie… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [Taps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… Michael Welzl