Subject: [bfcpbis] call for comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:06:09 +0000

As discussed in the session today at IETF 89, this is to officially
announce a 2-week call for comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-11
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-11), due by or
before March 19, 2014.
If the draft is perfect as is, please share that comment on the list as
well.

Thank you,
Charles

---

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:27:38 +0000

(as an individual)

I read through the draft in detail. It addresses all the concerns I raised
previously.
In addition to the TCP/TLS clarifications requested by Christer, I suggest
the following changes. These are mostly editorial.

Section 5.3.17:
s/should acknowledge/acknowledge
I think it is best to drop the ³should² to avoid confusion with normative
statements. This is also more consistent with the rest of the message
descriptions in this section. Normative language regarding the sending of
request/response messages is specified elsewhere.

Section 6: Transport
I suggest rewording the information note as follows:
OLD:
Informational note: In practice products are configured to try one
             transport initially and use the other one as a fallback.
Whether
             TCP or UDP is chosen as underlying transport depends on type
of
             product and the nature of the environment it is deployed.
Here
             Appendix B are important to consider.

NEW:
Informational note: In practice, products are configured to try one
             transport first and use the other transport as a fallback.
Whether
             TCP or UDP is chosen as the underlying transport depends on
the type of
             product and the deployment environment. See Appendix B for
additional 
considerations.

Section 6.2
s/Situations Š is described/Situations Š are described

Section 8
s/all requests will use retransmission timer T1/retransmission timer T1
MUST be used for all requests

Section 8.2
s/valuse/values

Section 16.2
s/The clarification and bug fixes/Clarifications and bug fixes

I¹m not sure what "Non-functional language clarifications² are, but I
don¹t think we want them in the draft :)
Perhaps replace with ³Non-normative language clarifications²?

Cheers,
Charles

On 3/4/14, 3:06 PM, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>bfcpbis mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis