Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2011-09-15

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:04:51 -0500

Hi all,

Here's the link to the new LC assignments:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/reviewers-110915-lc.html

The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art.html
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.

Thanks,

Jean

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.

Document:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:31:17 -0400

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-31.txt
   Sockets API Extensions for Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 15-Sept-2011
IETF LC End Date: 27-Sept-2011
IESG Telechat date: 6-Oct-2011

Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
    For the shepherd's consideration:  Is it sufficiently clear how the 
source address will be selected when sending a message, if bindx or 
wildcarding has been used to bind multiple source addresses?  My guess 
is that this lack of description matches other specs in how that is 
handled, but I wanted to check.

Nits/editorial comments:
     Editorial gs/proceeded/preceded/

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:07:40 -0500

At 08:31 PM 9/15/2011, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call 
>comments you may receive.
>
>    For the shepherd's consideration:  Is it sufficiently clear how 
> the source address will be selected when sending a message, if 
> bindx or wildcarding has been used to bind multiple source 
> addresses?  My guess is that this lack of description matches other 
> specs in how that is handled, but I wanted to check.

Here's consecutive responses from the two main authors/editors:

"
 > Yes, the lack of description matches what you find in other 
specifications at least
 > specs to my knowledge. I think this "fuzziness" in the spec is so 
that implementors
 > have room to play.. which they do ;-)
The only thing we can add is a statement that the source address will be
* one of the bounded addresses, if the socket is bound to 
non-wildcard addresses
* one of the addresses of the host, it the socket is bound to a 
wildcard address.
Maybe add some text regarding IPv4/IPv6.

However:
* I think all of this is obvious.
* The crucial point, how to select a specific source address, does not
   belong to an API spec. Maybe in the base protocol spec. But it was
   left out (I think on purpose), since we do not require the SCTP
   to do source address selection. It might be done by the IP layer.
   For example, if you use a userland implementation.
"

What do you think Joel?

James

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:04:13 -0400

Good enough.  If that is how it has been handled in other cases, then I 
can leave it as is in this case.

Thanks for following up promptly,
Joel

On 9/16/2011 7:07 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
> * one of the bounded addresses, if the socket is bound to non-wildcard
> addresses
> * one of the addresses of the host, it the socket is bound to a wildcard
> address.