Subject: [Taps] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:07:49 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-06: 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-transports-usage-udp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- general: As I mentioned in my review of the general transport-usage draft, I
think the two drafts should be combined.

-2: "It uses common terminology defined in that document and also refers to the
terminology of RFC 2119 [RFC2119], but does not itself define new
   terms."
Why does this draft need to refer to 2119? It should not be using 2119 keywords
outside of direct quotes. (If it does need to use 2119 keywords, please use the
boilerplate from 2119 or 8174 .)

-3.1, 2nd paragraph: "should be able to create receive, source, and
   destination ports and addresses (setting the source and destination
   ports and addresses),"

Is there a missing word after "create"?

- 3.1, last paragraph: "[RFC6935] and [RFC6936] defines an update..."
s/defines/define