Hi Martin,
thank you for your comments.
> - 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.
The requirement was not meant to be for a particular transport protocol.
The requirement involves indeed the upper layer with message transport.
A simple example is the use of CoAP avoiding message fragmentation.
I would like to propose following change:
s/scalable transport layer/scalable message transport/
> - 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.
If we remove the part you meant I think we are losing something.
I would like to suggest to change as following.
OLD:
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.
NEW:
The reliability might be achieved based on a transport
protocol such as TCP or can be supported using a message
repetition for the message transport.
> - Req-ID: 10.003: Multicast is not a feature of the transport layer.
The requirement is leaned on message transport.
With this may be should also change the subsection title to:
3.10. Transport layer and Message Transport
Cheers,
Mehmet
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:57 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on
draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-04: (with COMMENT)
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
