Skip to main content

Transport Features of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and Lightweight UDP (UDP-Lite)
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-07

Yes

(Spencer Dawkins)

No Objection

(Adam Roach)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2017-09-13 for -06) Unknown
Nits:
1: Section Introduction
"o  SO_REUSEADDR specifies the rules for validating addresses supplied
      to bind() should allow reuse of local addresses." 
This doesn't really parse -- perhaps "specifies that the rules" ?

2: Section 3.1.  Primitives Provided by UDP
"A bind operation sets the local port, either
          implicitly, triggered by a "sendto" operation on an unbound
          unconnected socket using an ephemeral port.  Or by an explicit
          "bind" to use a configured or well-known port."
The "Or by an explicit..." feels like a fragment.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -06) Unknown

                            
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-09-13 for -06) Unknown
- 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
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Mirja K├╝hlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-09-11 for -06) Unknown
Question: Given this is pass 1 (describing the (abstract) API as defined in the spec), why is there a LISTEN for UDP?
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-09-13 for -06) Unknown
* Section 1

"The UDP and UDP-Lite sockets API differs from that for TCP in several key ways."

I was expecting the document to at least briefly describe the differences following this. The socket option text that follows does not really fit the bill. e.g. SO_REUSEADDR applies to TCP as well as UDP.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown