Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-01-22
Requested 2013-01-10
Authors Michael Tüxen , Randall R. Stewart
I-D last updated 2013-01-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay K. Gurbani
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready
Completed 2013-01-11
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps-07
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Jan-11-2013
IETF LC End Date: Jan-22-2013
IESG Telechat date: Feb-07-2013

This document is ready as a Proposed Standard.

Major: 0
Minor: 2
Nits: 1

- S4.1, second paragraph: I suspect that the expectation is that
 the SCTP stack uses a single local UDP port number for
 *all local interfaces*, right?  As written currently, the qualifier
 for "all local interfaces" is missing --- maybe it is assumed?  If so,
 better to state explicitly.

- S5, second paragraph ("Please note that this section is informational
 only.") --- I am not sure the value of this sentence.  The draft itself
 is targeted as a standards track document, so it comes as a surprise
 that a certain section is to be exempted from normative language.  How-
 ever, since there isn't any normative language (as per rfc2119) in the
 remainder of S5, why bother with informing the reader that this section
 is informational?  My suggestion would be to simply remove the
 offending sentence to decrease any ambiguity.


- S3.1, third paragraph: I would suggest "s/user-land/user space".
 It is better to be academic than colloquial here.


- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg at {,} / vijay.gurbani at