Subject: [tsvwg] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:17:54 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: Yes

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-rfc5405bis/

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

Hi, thanks for this document.  I just have a few nit level comments:

- I agree with Benoit that a more detailed "changes since 5405" section
would be helpful (separate from the inter-version change section.)

- IDNits points out that RFC  896 is obsoleted RFC 7805. Is the reference
to 896 intentional? (The shepherd writeup mentions a different obsolete
reference, but not this one.)

- 3, 2nd paragraph:
Is it reasonable to avoid the negation in "not rare" and just say
"common"?

-3.1.1, 3rd paragraph: Please expand TFRC on first mention. (I think the
original 5405 text that expanded it got moved to later in the document.)

-3.4, paragraph 3: "An application MAY optionally discard UDP datagrams
   with a zero checksum [RFC1122]"
Does this MAY give permission to discard, or state the fact that 1122
gives permission to discard? (If the second, please consider non-2119
language to avoid the ambiguity.)

-3.4.1, last bullet in list: I think there may be an editing or
copy/paste error here.  (Limit the usage of what? Is that section 3.6
_of_ RFC7510?)

-3.6: Yay!

- section 6, third paragraph: "Applications MAY also want to offer ways
to limit the
   number of requests they respond to in a time interval, in order to
   cap the bandwidth they consume."

Is that MAY intentionally capitalized? Seems like a statement of fact.

-section 6, paragraph 5:  I concur with Kathleen's comment to reference
7525 in the DTLS discussion.

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:37:08 +0000

> would be helpful (separate from the inter-version change section.)

I tried to come up with a short section, but gave up. There are just too many changes since 5405.

> reference, but not this one.)

Good catch. This should be 1122.

> Is it reasonable to avoid the negation in "not rare" and just say

That would be overstating things. But I changed it to "sometimes present".

> original 5405 text that expanded it got moved to later in the document.)

Fixed

> language to avoid the ambiguity.)

The latter; fixed

> copy/paste error here.  (Limit the usage of what? Is that section 3.6

Good catch, fixed

> Is that MAY intentionally capitalized? Seems like a statement of fact.

Yes it is

> 7525 in the DTLS discussion.
Done

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:14:56 -0500

Thanks for the response. All your comments are fine with me.

Thanks!

Ben.