Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-04: No Objection
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 http://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: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No objection to the publication of this draft, but of course a number of comments about Section 3.10 on Transport protocols: - Req-ID: 10.001: Not sure if this is really a requirement for a transport protocol. I would read this as a requirement for the implementation of a transport protocol. - Req-ID: 10.002 says Description: Diverse applications need a reliable transport of messages. The reliability might be achieved based on a transport protocol such as TCP or can be supported based on message repetition if an acknowledgment is missing. Repitition without any limitation on the number of repititions, etc is not a feature of a reliable transport protocol. I would remove "or can be supported based on message repetition if an acknowledgment is missing". Otherwise the text will blow up when you try to specific what features a reliable transport protocol should have. - Req-ID: 10.003: Multicast is not a feature of the transport layer. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
