That would be fine, and much less annoying than delaying publication for a bureacratic issue.
(Sorry to act as a bureaucrat, but it's better to clear such issues before someone in the IESG slaps a DISCUSS on it.) Brian On 2010-03-17 09:46, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > Works for me as well. > > -murtaza > > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Morton [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:16 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter; > [email protected]; General Area > Review Team > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of > draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04.txt > > At 05:13 PM 3/11/2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04.txt >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review Date: 2010-03-12 >> IETF LC End Date: 2010-03-15 >> IESG Telechat date: >> >> Summary: Ready, except for normative reference issue. >> -------- >> >> Major issue: >> ------------ >> >> Implementers of this feature MAY also wish to implement the > "Reflect >> Octets" feature, described in [I-D.ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets], >> once it has been published as an RFC. >> >> I think this is a normative reference, even though it's optional, since >> it uses a normative keyword. That could be fixed by s/MAY/may/, but >> the later reference to the same draft is clearly normative: >> >> If the Control-Client has selected the Reflect Octets feature >> [I-D.ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets] in combination with the >> Individual Session Control feature (after the Server identified its >> capability), AND utilizes the feature to insert a locally-specified >> request number in the Request-TW-Session command, THEN the Control >> Client MAY send more than one Request-TW-Session command to a given >> Server without waiting for the corresponding Accept-Session > message. >> In such a case the Access-Session response reflects the locally- >> specified request number. Note that when the Reflect Octets > feature >> is being used all Request-TW-Session command and Accept-Session >> responses MUST include the locally-specified request number. > > Brian, > > Thanks for your comments. > > I think we could move the paragraph above > (the last paragraph in section 3.1) to the > ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets draft, provide a > reference to the session-control draft (as an RFC when approved) > and resolve that particular normative reference issue. > > Since TWAMP-Control session requests and ACKs always precede the > messages to start and stop sessions (the focus of this draft), > they are separable topics, to me at least. Perhaps the fact that > we could move this paragraph so easily means that the text should > not use normative "MAY" terms - it's just an observation on how > two features might be used together. > > The scenario these features have in common is > "create and control many simultaneous test sessions". > But any system using "reflect-octets" in the way described > can launch simultaneous Request-TW-Session commands. > > So, for the purposes of resolving your comments, we would > delete the last paragraph of section 3.1, and s /MAY/may/ > as you suggested in the introduction. > > Al > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
