Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:06:48 +0300

Hi!

	One comment:

	- Section 4.5.2, S1): It seems that the outstanding chunks are all
the chunks whose TSN is older than the Cumulative TSN ACK... What about the
ones already acknowledged by a "Gap Ack Block" in a SACK? are they
considered outstanding as well?

	And what I think are typos:

	- Section 1, first paragraph: "senarios".
	- The numbering of bytes in the chunks/parameters is misaligned.
Include one space before the lines that contains the numbers.
	- I don't really know how the article a/an is used before acronyms,
but sometimes you read "a ASCONF" and some others "an ASCONF".
	- Section 3.2.1, before the example: I guess this is a "cut and
paste" mistake... It tells you about setting primary address, not about
adding an address.
	- This is not exactly a typo, but the types of chunks are usually
written in hexadecimal, and the types of parameters are written in
decimal... In the examples both bases appear mixed... maybe the notation
could be unified...
	- Section 3.2.3: The "Stream Number" field of the chunks seems to be
17 bytes long, and the "Flow Limit" 15.
	- Section 4.1: I guess that you have "eaten" some words in A7) and
A8)... where you that hungry? ;-).
	- Section 4.1, the note at the end of the section: "Note: That the
the...".
	- Section 4.3, D1): "... may use the address has a destination..."
may be "... may use the address as a destination...".
	- Section 4.3, D4): "... MUST NOT be used has a source
destination..." may be "... MUST NOT be used as a source destination...".
	- Section 4.3, D7): "remaingin".
	- Section 4.5.1, second paragraph: "... flow limits with there
respective..." I guess should be "... flow limits with their respective...".
	- And last but least, Section 7: My name is Iván Arias Rodríguez all
together (in Spain we have two surnames, first one from our father, second
one from our mother... let my daddy be proud of me as well!! ;-)).

	BR Iván Arias Rodríguez

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: "Randall R. Stewart" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 07:13:45 -0500

> considered outstanding as well?

I think you MUST consider them outstanding.. since at any time the
peer may REVOKE the SACK. Thus you MUST wait until the CUM-TSN passes
the TSN value before allowing your upper layer to send/queue more data.

>         And what I think are typos:

Ok, thanks for the fixes :)

> Include one space before the lines that contains the numbers.

opps..

> but sometimes you read "a ASCONF" and some others "an ASCONF".

it should be an ASCONF I think.. but I am far far from an expert :)
I will make them all consistent with an :/

> paste" mistake... It tells you about setting primary address, not about

Yep :/

> decimal... In the examples both bases appear mixed... maybe the notation

ok I will change it all to hex... I think this is much better
at showing the upper bit postions...

> 17 bytes long, and the "Flow Limit" 15.

opps...

> A8)... where you that hungry? ;-).

This is not even a case of being hungry.. but instead just futzing up
the merge of the two documents ... or should I say three :/

The new text will look as follows:

"
    A7) If an error response is received for a TLV parameter,
    all TLVs with no response before the failed TLV are considered
    successful if not reported.  All TLVs after the failed response are
    considered unsuccessful unless a specific success indication is
    present for the parameter.

    A8) If there is no response to a TLV parameter, and no failures 
    are indicated, then the request is considered sucessful.

"

>         - Section 4.1, the note at the end of the section: "Note: That the
ok
> may be "... may use the address as a destination...".
yep..

> destination..." may be "... MUST NOT be used as a source destination...".
ok

>         - Section 4.3, D7): "remaingin".

maybe I was thinking of gin :)

> respective..." I guess should be "... flow limits with their respective...".

ok..

> one from our mother... let my daddy be proud of me as well!! ;-)).

Sorry about that..it will be fixed in the next pass :)

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
[email-masked] or [email-masked]
815-342-5222 (cell) 815-477-2127 (work)