Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-15
review-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-15-genart-lc-robles-2021-10-14-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-10-14
Requested 2021-09-30
Authors Randall R. Stewart , Michael Tüxen , karen Nielsen
I-D last updated 2021-10-14
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -15 by Ines Robles (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -15 by Eliot Lear (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -16 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/CGvwBpYmY6JIViwZ3JQTLa5hkss
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 19)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2021-10-14
review-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-15-genart-lc-robles-2021-10-14-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-15
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2021-10-14
IETF LC End Date: 2021-10-14
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This document describes the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and
incorporates the specification of the chunk flags registry from RFC 6096 and
the specification of the I bit of DATA chunks from RFC 7053. This document
obsolotes RFC 4960, RFC 6069 and RFC 7053.

Some minor nits found.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

Page 10: Primary Path:....destination and source address -> destination and
source transport address?

Page 16: Section 2.5.7: "...currently perceived reachability..." -> Which
mechanisms are used to perceive reachability?

Page 18: "... for ABC..." => "... for Appropriate Byte Counting (ABC)..."?

Page 42: "... send a HEARTBEAT..." -> ... send a HEARTBEAT (HB)..."

Page 55, Figure 3: "generate Cookie" -> "generate State Cookie"?.
                                   "start init timer" -> "start T1-init timer"?
                                   "start cookie timer" -> "start T1-cookie
                                   timer"?

Page 58, Section 5.1: In the section A) , should be added the creation of the
TCB?

Page 66, Section 5.2: "... this endpoint. , the endpoint processes..." ->
"...this endpoint. Therefore, the endpoint processes..."?

Page 76: "... ESTABLISHED, SHUTDOWN-PENDING, and SHUTDOWN-SENT." -> "...
ESTABLISHED, SHUTDOWN-PENDING, and SHUTDOWN-SENT states."?
         "... SHUTDOWN-PENDING, and SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED."->"... SHUTDOWN-PENDING,
         and SHUTDOWN-RECEIVED states."?

Page 77: "... indefinte ...." -> indefinite?

Page 80: One of the reason for setting the I bit from RFC 7053 (Section 5.1. 
Sender-Side Considerations) is not present in the draft, is this Ok? "The
sending of an Outgoing SSN Reset Request Parameter or an SSN/TSN Reset Request
Parameter is pending, if the association supports the Stream Reconfiguration
extension defined in [RFC6525]."

Page 81: "...Gap Ack Block fields. , the endpoint"-> "Gap Ack Block fields.
Therefore, the endpoint"?

Page 94: "...then IP fragmentation MUST be used. , an SCTP association can..."
-> "...then IP fragmentation MUST be used. Therefore, an SCTP ..."?

Thanks for this document,

Ines.