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

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 19:43:50 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: 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-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".

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.

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

§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.

---

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:31:17 +0200

Dear Ben,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-minset/

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).

> 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

Done (using the POSIX specs)

> to include some description of the typographical convention. (This repeats in

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.

> please consider moving it into the body. People regularly skip reading

Done.

Cheers,
Michael