Subject: [tsvwg] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-15: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:06:04 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-15: 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-tsvwg-sctp-failover/

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

In addition to the 2119 issues that Ben has raised...

In Section 3.2 bullet 1:

        The RECOMMENDED value of PFMR is
        0, but other values MAY be used.

"SHOULD do X, but MAY do Y" makes no sense.  In this case, you can
(should) just remove "but other values MAY be used".  You might instead
say *why* 0 is recommended at a 2119 level (implying that it has
interoperability implications).

In bullet 9, I found this to be oddly worded:

        A SCTP sender MAY clear the error counter
        and move a destination address back to active state if it has
        other information, than the acknowledgment, that uniquely
        determines which destination, among multiple destination
        addresses, the chunk reached.

Perhaps this?:

NEW
        A SCTP sender MAY clear the error counter
        and move a destination address back to active state if it has
        information other than the acknowledgment that uniquely
        determines which destination, among multiple destination
        addresses, the chunk reached.
END

---

From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 21:38:33 -0800

Hi Barry,

Thanks for the comments. Please see inlines.

> interoperability implications).

OK. We will remove "but..".

>         addresses, the chunk reached.

I see. I might want to disambiguate "that uniquely..." part just in case.
How about something like this?

A SCTP sender MAY clear the error counter and move a destination address
back to active state by
other information than acknowledgments when it can uniquely determine which
destination,
among multiple destination addresses, the chunk reached.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 08:37:12 -0500

> among multiple destination addresses, the chunk reached.

Part of the oddness is "other information than acknowledgments", which
seems to be awkward English usage; "information other than
acknowledgments" reads better.  I would also put a comma after that,
to end up with this, after your change and mine:

NEW
A SCTP sender MAY clear the error counter and move a destination
address back to active state by information other than
acknowledgments, when it can uniquely determine which destination,
among multiple destination addresses, the chunk reached.
END

Thanks for the quick response,
Barry

---

From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:04:51 -0800

Hi Barry,

> among multiple destination addresses, the chunk reached.

Got it. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll update the draft.

Regards,
--
Yoshi