thanks mehmet On 2/20/15 9:46 AM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: > 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. > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
