Subject: [tsvwg] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 05:14:48 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-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 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-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Section 3.1 --

   The Limited Retransmissions Policy can be used with data channels in
   the WebRTC protocol stack.  See [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] for
   more information.

I wonder whether implementors might misunderstand, and think this is
meant to be restrictive.  Please consider changing the wording (here and
in 3.2) to something like this:

NEW
   The Limited Retransmissions Policy was designed to be used with
   data channels in the WebRTC protocol stack (see
   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]), and can also be used in other
   appropriate situations.
END

...or maybe...

NEW
   The WebRTC protocol stack (see [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]), is
   an example of where the Limited Retransmissions Policy might be
   used.
END

-- Section 3.2 --

   When storing a user message in the send buffer
   while there is not enough available space, the SCTP stack at the
   sender side MAY abandon other user messages of the same SCTP
   association with a priority lower than the provided one.  The
   algorithm for selecting the message being abandoned is implementation
   specific.

A minor point: the first part is written as allowing multiple messages to
be abandoned, and the last sentence is written in the singular.  Should
the second part say "message(s)" ?

-- Section 4.2 --

The table shows the two policies that come out of RFC 6458 and the two
that come from this document.  Is it worth it to create a (FCFS?)
registry for these names, to document them and provide references?

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:58:03 +0100

> On 26 Jan 2015, at 14:14, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
I prefer the second one.

I changed the text to
<t>The WebRTC protocol stack (see <xref target='I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel'/>),
is an example of where the Limited Retransmissions Policy is used.</t>

and for consistency

<t>The IPFIX protocol stack (see <xref target='RFC7011'/>) is an example
of where the Priority Policy can be used.</t>
> the second part say "message(s)" ?
Already fixed:
<t>Using the Priority Policy allows the sender of a user message to specify
a priority. When storing a user message in the send buffer while there is not
enough available space, the SCTP stack at the sender side MAY abandon other
user message(s) of the same SCTP association with a priority lower than the
provided one. The algorithm for selecting the message(s) being abandoned is
implementation specific.</t>
> registry for these names, to document them and provide references?
See my earlier response.

Best regards
Michael