Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-06: 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-usage-udp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - general: As I mentioned in my review of the general transport-usage draft, I think the two drafts should be combined. -2: "It uses common terminology defined in that document and also refers to the terminology of RFC 2119 [RFC2119], but does not itself define new terms." Why does this draft need to refer to 2119? It should not be using 2119 keywords outside of direct quotes. (If it does need to use 2119 keywords, please use the boilerplate from 2119 or 8174 .) -3.1, 2nd paragraph: "should be able to create receive, source, and destination ports and addresses (setting the source and destination ports and addresses)," Is there a missing word after "create"? - 3.1, last paragraph: "[RFC6935] and [RFC6936] defines an update..." s/defines/define _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
