Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-taps-transports-12: 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 https://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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-transports/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for writing this document. I found it to be very useful summary of the transport protocols. * Section 3.1 Missing the Abort command. * Section 3.3 Why does UDP has a reference to the base IPv6 spec [RFC2460]? Is this for the pseudo-header calculation? If so, it needs to be added to TCP as well. * Section 3.3.1 - Might be worthwhile adding a reference to RFC6936 as well to explain the applicability of UDP zero checksums in IPv6. e.g. OLD: IPv6 does not permit UDP datagrams with no checksum, although in certain cases this rule may be relaxed [RFC6935]. NEW: IPv6 does not permit UDP datagrams with no checksum, although in certain cases [RFC6936] this rule may be relaxed [RFC6935]. The following sentence at the end of Page 11 seems incomplete Applications that need to provide fragmentation * Section 3.12 The reference for ICMPv6 is wrong. It should be RFC4443 instead of RFC4433 as stated in the draft. * Section 3.12.1 RFC1716 has long been obsoleted by RFC1812. Is there any reason to use the old router requirement spec? * Section 5 ICMP can be used with multicast addresses as well. _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
