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

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8304, changed title to 'Transport Features of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and Lightweight UDP (UDP-Lite)', changed abstract to 'This is an informational document that describes the transport protocol interface primitives provided by the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and the Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) transport protocols.  It identifies the datagram services exposed to applications and how an application can configure and use the features offered by the Internet datagram transport service.  RFC 8303 documents the usage of transport features provided by IETF transport protocols, describing the way UDP, UDP-Lite, and other transport protocols expose their services to applications and how an application can configure and use the features that make up these services.  This document provides input to and context for that document, as well as offers a road map to documentation that may help users of the UDP and UDP-Lite protocols.', changed pages to 20, changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2018-02-07, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
* 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.

[Ballot 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

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-09-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, taps-chairs@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, Zaheduzzaman Sarker , draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp@ietf.org, taps@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Features of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and Lightweight UDP (UDP- Lite) Transport Protocols) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Services WG (taps) to
consider the following document: - 'Features of the User Datagram Protocol
(UDP) and Lightweight UDP (UDP-
  Lite) Transport Protocols'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-09-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This is an informational document that describes the transport
  protocol interface primitives provided by the User Datagram Protocol
  (UDP) and the Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) transport
  protocols.  It identifies the datagram services exposed to
  applications and how an application can configure and use the
  features offered by the Internet datagram transport service.  RFCxxxx
  documents the usage of transport features provided by IETF transport
  protocols, describing the way UDP, UDP-Lite and other transport
  protocols expose their services to applications and how an
  application can configure and use the features that make up these
  services.  This document provides input to and context for that
  document, as well as offering a road map to documentation that may be
  of help to users of the UDP and UDP-Lite protocols.

  XXX RFC-Ed Note - please replace RFCxxxx with the published RFC
  number for I-D.ietf-taps-transports-usage, when these documents are
  both published XXX.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Zaheduzzaman Sarker. The responsible Area Director is Spencer Dawkins.

This document describes well established function calls as "primitives" that any program can use to get automated services from UDP and UDP-lite protocol. This description gives very good information about the services provided by the protocols as in the RFC series. The working group believes the primitives will be useful to use a transport service implementation.

2. Review and Consensus

The primitives for UDP and UDP-lite initially intended to be part of draft-ietf-transport-usage however working group agreed to have a smaller document for these protocols.

As this describe primitives based on what already available in RFC series for those protocol it was straightforward to get consensus on the primitives. All versions of this document got a fair amount of discussions in the mailing list hence were well reviewed and got positive feedback on working group last call.

3. Intellectual Property

Each author has confirmed conformance with BCP 78/79. There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points

There is no normative downref and no IANA considerations.