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

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Thu, 13 September 2018 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C0A130DD3; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lG7Dj5byYx1Q; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out02.uio.no (mail-out02.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09052124D68; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx12.uio.no ([129.240.10.84]) by mail-out02.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1g0SeN-0006Gb-Px; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:31:19 +0200
Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx12.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1g0SeN-000Abl-9K; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:31:19 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <153672023028.16940.1526771839596698118.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:31:17 +0200
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-taps-minset@ietf.org, taps-chairs@ietf.org, theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de, taps@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3A5B5402-7B97-4278-9C1C-5D487532CE29@ifi.uio.no>
References: <153672023028.16940.1526771839596698118.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx12.uio.no: 129.240.68.135 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=129.240.68.135; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=boomerang.ifi.uio.no;
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 847C6512590349E80270AC44AA80DE6D1DADA3E3
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/wUQ0k7ypmjpM7vfftOUha2j7rgo>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:31:24 -0000

Dear Ben,

Thanks a lot for your comments! Answers below:


> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: No Objection
> 
> 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> General:
> 
> It's not clear to me who the target audience is for this draft or what the
> purpose is for publishing it as an RFC. It seems like an internal working group
> document that won't have much archival value once the interfaces are published.
> It seems telling that Appendix A (which IIUC is entirely historical) is almost
> twice as long as the body of the draft.  But I see that it is in fact chartered
> work, so I'm balloting "No Objection".

Appendices A.2 and A.3 are, in our opinion, not historical, and meaningful
to implementers. We moved this text there by request, and have now moved
it back to the main text by request (by several others).


> Otherwise, I just have a few editorial comments:
> 
> General: The annotation "(!UDP)" is used throughout. I can guess the meaning,
> but it would be better to explicitly state it. Also, it seems odd to find that
> sort of annotation imbedded in paragraph form text.

We have now stated the meaning at the beginning of the section where it is
used, and renamed it to "not UDP", which should look a little better in
paragraph form text.


> §1: Please include a citation for the "Berkeley Sockets Interface". (Maybe the
> POSIX specs?)

Done (using the POSIX specs)


> §3.1, section title: What is the meaning of using all-caps here? It would help
> to include some description of the typographical convention. (This repeats in
> some other sections).

This is done for consistency with RFC 8303. Moving the appendix
to the front now caused us to also move text that says very clearly
why we follow this terminology.


> §3.1 "We caution implementers to be aware of the full
>   set of trade-offs, for which we recommend consulting the list in
>   Appendix A.2.1 when deciding how to initialize a connection."
> 
> If there is content in an Appendix that is risky for an implementor to skip,
> please consider moving it into the body. People regularly skip reading
> appendices.

Done.

Cheers,
Michael