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
