Hi Yoshi,
> On 2 Jan 2016, at 09:20, Yoshifumi Nishida <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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?
Your text sounds like a requirement on UIs (and not on APIs), I think you meant
a requirement on APIs (with no requirement on UIs, which might expose this
option anyway. I personally think that exposing this option to anybody by
application developers or system administrators is going to be a mistake). So I
think you should change "users'" to "applications'". I am sorry if this sounds
like nitpicking, but I think this is an important difference.
>
>> 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.
How is ABI interoperability (binary interface interoperability between
different implementations, for example if they are implemented as shared
libraries) achieved with SCTP options?
Best Regards,
Alexey
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
