[tsvwg] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: (with COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 12 October 2016 17:17 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF221294AA; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
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>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.34.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147629267441.6361.14616709969508339292.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:17:54 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/rSXQJLNt1RIrIIUcmhKNLt5nVkY>
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis@ietf.org, david.black@emc.com, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: [tsvwg] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:17:54 -0000
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: Yes 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-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, thanks for this document. I just have a few nit level comments: - I agree with Benoit that a more detailed "changes since 5405" section would be helpful (separate from the inter-version change section.) - 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.) - 3, 2nd paragraph: Is it reasonable to avoid the negation in "not rare" and just say "common"? -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.) -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.) -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?) -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. -section 6, paragraph 5: I concur with Kathleen's comment to reference 7525 in the DTLS discussion.
- [tsvwg] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [tsvwg] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvw… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [tsvwg] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvw… Ben Campbell