Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-14
review-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-14-genart-lc-melnikov-2015-12-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-12-23
Requested 2015-12-10
Authors Yoshifumi Nishida , Preethi Natarajan , Armando L. Caro , Paul D. Amer , karen Nielsen
I-D last updated 2018-12-20 (Latest revision 2016-02-17)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -14 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Alexey Melnikov
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2015-12-23
review-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-14-genart-lc-melnikov-2015-12-23-00
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-14
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 2015-12-23
IETF LC End Date: 2015-12-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known) N/A

Summary: Ready with a couple of minor points that need to be clarified.

Major issues:
None

Minor issues:

In Section 5

   However as [RFC4960] switchback behavior is
   suboptimal in certain situations, especially in scenarios where a
   number of equally good paths are available, an SCTP implementation
   MAY support also, as alternative behavior, the Primary Path
   Switchover mode of operation and MAY enable it based on users’
   requests.



Did you really mean "users" (human beings) and not "applications" 


(programs) here? I.e., is this something that needs to be exposed in 


APIs or User Interfaces.






In Section 7.1: should new constants be defined with specific numeric 


values, in order to improve interoperability?