Re: [tsvwg] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the response. All your comments are fine with me.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 14 Oct 2016, at 8:37, Eggert, Lars wrote:

> On 2016-10-12, at 19:17, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> - I agree with Benoit that a more detailed "changes since 5405" 
>> section
>> would be helpful (separate from the inter-version change section.)
>
> I tried to come up with a short section, but gave up. There are just 
> too many changes since 5405.
>
>> - IDNits points out that RFC  896 is obsoleted RFC 7805. Is the 
>> reference
>> to 896 intentional? (The shepherd writeup mentions a different 
>> obsolete
>> reference, but not this one.)
>
> Good catch. This should be 1122.
>
>> - 3, 2nd paragraph:
>> Is it reasonable to avoid the negation in "not rare" and just say
>> "common"?
>
> That would be overstating things. But I changed it to "sometimes 
> present".
>
>> -3.1.1, 3rd paragraph: Please expand TFRC on first mention. (I think 
>> the
>> original 5405 text that expanded it got moved to later in the 
>> document.)
>
> Fixed
>
>>
>> -3.4, paragraph 3: "An application MAY optionally discard UDP 
>> datagrams
>>   with a zero checksum [RFC1122]"
>> Does this MAY give permission to discard, or state the fact that 1122
>> gives permission to discard? (If the second, please consider non-2119
>> language to avoid the ambiguity.)
>
> The latter; fixed
>
>>
>> -3.4.1, last bullet in list: I think there may be an editing or
>> copy/paste error here.  (Limit the usage of what? Is that section 3.6
>> _of_ RFC7510?)
>
> Good catch, fixed
>
>>
>> -3.6: Yay!
>>
>> - section 6, third paragraph: "Applications MAY also want to offer 
>> ways
>> to limit the
>>   number of requests they respond to in a time interval, in order to
>>   cap the bandwidth they consume."
>>
>> Is that MAY intentionally capitalized? Seems like a statement of 
>> fact.
>
> Yes it is
>
>>
>> -section 6, paragraph 5:  I concur with Kathleen's comment to 
>> reference
>> 7525 in the DTLS discussion.
>>
> Done
>>
>