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

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:42:22 -0800

Benoit Claise 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed by Jürgen Schönwäder (part of this OPS DIR review) and the
authors.

Jürgen: Since the I-D introduces the new state Potentially Failed, does
this
  imply that an update of the SCTP-MIB [RFC3873] (sctpAssocState) is
  needed as well? Are there additional MIB objects to report, e.g.,
  spt_pathpfthld and spt_pathcpthld? I see some additional SCTP
  related docs in TSVWG and perhaps after they have been completed an
  update of the SCTP-MIB would make sense to consider.

Yoshifumi Nishida: I think it makes senses to update MIB. We'll check
with implementors and other experts. 
Thanks for pointing it out. 

Ideally, you should add a sentence or two expressing that RFC3873 should
be updated to support this functionality with a few objects that ...

---

From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 01:37:57 -0800

Hi Benoit,

Thanks for the review.
I put my comments in lines.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover/

OK. I think we can put some sentences for this.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi