Hi Alexey, Thanks for the comments.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-14 > Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov > Review Date: 2015-12-23 > IETF LC End Date: 2015-12-23 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) N/A > > Summary: Ready with a couple of minor points that need to be clarified. > > Major issues: > None > > Minor issues: > > In Section 5 > > However as [RFC4960] switchback behavior is > suboptimal in certain situations, especially in scenarios where a > number of equally good paths are available, an SCTP implementation > MAY support also, as alternative behavior, the Primary Path > Switchover mode of operation and MAY enable it based on users’ > requests. > > Did you really mean "users" (human beings) and not "applications" > (programs) here? I.e., is this something that needs to be exposed in APIs > or User Interfaces. > Yes, It basically meant if people prefer (which means they understand its advantage and disadvantage), this feature can be activated. APIs or UIs can be implemented for this, but I'm not very sure if we need.. Could you elaborate your concern here? > In Section 7.1: should new constants be defined with specific numeric > values, in order to improve interoperability? > In my understanding, RFC6458 doesn't define specific numeric values. I prefer to follow the convention of RFC6458 unless there are strong reasons. Thanks! -- Yoshi
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
