Dear Ben, Thanks a lot for your comments! Answers below:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: No Objection > > 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-minset/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > General: > > It's not clear to me who the target audience is for this draft or what the > purpose is for publishing it as an RFC. It seems like an internal working > group > document that won't have much archival value once the interfaces are > published. > It seems telling that Appendix A (which IIUC is entirely historical) is almost > twice as long as the body of the draft. But I see that it is in fact > chartered > work, so I'm balloting "No Objection". Appendices A.2 and A.3 are, in our opinion, not historical, and meaningful to implementers. We moved this text there by request, and have now moved it back to the main text by request (by several others). > Otherwise, I just have a few editorial comments: > > General: The annotation "(!UDP)" is used throughout. I can guess the meaning, > but it would be better to explicitly state it. Also, it seems odd to find that > sort of annotation imbedded in paragraph form text. We have now stated the meaning at the beginning of the section where it is used, and renamed it to "not UDP", which should look a little better in paragraph form text. > §1: Please include a citation for the "Berkeley Sockets Interface". (Maybe the > POSIX specs?) Done (using the POSIX specs) > §3.1, section title: What is the meaning of using all-caps here? It would help > to include some description of the typographical convention. (This repeats in > some other sections). This is done for consistency with RFC 8303. Moving the appendix to the front now caused us to also move text that says very clearly why we follow this terminology. > §3.1 "We caution implementers to be aware of the full > set of trade-offs, for which we recommend consulting the list in > Appendix A.2.1 when deciding how to initialize a connection." > > If there is content in an Appendix that is risky for an implementor to skip, > please consider moving it into the body. People regularly skip reading > appendices. Done. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
