Subject: [tsvwg] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:33:02 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata-12: 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-sctp-ndata/

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

I wish this had been around back when we were figuring out how to share
connections in MSRP.

Otherwise, just a couple of editorial comments:

- Abstract: "Multiple ways for performing
   this selection, called stream schedulers, are defined. "
I assume you mean that they are defined in this document rather than in
previously existing documents, but it seems ambiguous.

- 2.1: "The sender uses two counters for
      each outgoing stream, one for ordered messages, one for unordered
      messages.  All counters are independent and initially 0."

s/ all / both  ; unless this rule is intended to apply to more counters than
the ones mentioned in the previous sentence.

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:02:50 +0200

> On 30. Aug 2017, at 00:33, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
Hi Ben,

thanks for your review. Comments in-line.

Best regards
Michael
> previously existing documents, but it seems ambiguous.
Changed to

Multiple ways for performing this selection, called stream schedulers, are
defined in this document.

> the ones mentioned in the previous sentence.
With "all counters" I'm referring to two counters for each outgoing stream. But
there might be more than one outgoing stream. So if there are n outgoing streams,
I'm referring to 2 * n counters. And these 2 * n counters are mentioned in the
previous sentence.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:12:55 -0500

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 4:02 AM, Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Works for me.

> I'm referring to 2 * n counters. And these 2 * n counters are mentioned in the

I read it in the context of the previous sentence, that is, both counters in a given stream. But this is not a blocking comment; do what you think is best.

Thanks!

Ben.