Subject: Re: [ippm] Preparing for a WGLC draft draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-03

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:50:20 +0100

Increasing the readership of this document by 1...

> At the last IPPM WG meeting, the authors stated that the draft:
> 
>           TWAMP Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Features
>                 draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-03
>   http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-03.txt

I don't see anything obviously wrong with this document.  Some details:

Abstract: I think it should be made (more) clear here that these are
  2 optional features, where one can implement one or both, and that
  existing implementations will continue to work regardless.

Section 1. "There are a growing number TWAMP implementations".
  * s/are a growing number/is a growning number of/
  * If this statement is correct, then we should try to get an overview
    of who is implementing and ask those folks specifically to review this
    doc.

Section 1, last sentence.
  It is not really an update, more a extension, one still has to look at
  the basic protocol to implement.

Section 2, the two bullet points.  Do we have specific cases where
  one would use these features.  I can imagine the symmetric size
  case but the other one isn't immediately obvious to me.

3.1. There is a hidden IANA request in there.

4. For all the diagrams, I think it would be good to explicitly
    state which diagram it replaces in 5357.

6.4: Point back to section 3.1.  And why are 5 and 32, and 6 and 64
    suggested (skipping 4 and 16)?

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
                                                                  H.L.Mencken

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:26:55 -0500

Henk,
thanks for your review and comments.

One quick reply to
At 09:50 AM 12/2/2009, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>...Section 1, last sentence.

The mixed security mode RFC is an extension, and requires the basic
protocol, and we made it an update to 5357:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5618

So, we were just trying to be consistent.
I don't think there's an official "extension" status.

Al