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

["Eggert, Lars" <[e-mail]>]

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
>