Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps-07
review-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps-07-genart-lc-gurbani-2013-01-11-00
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 |
review-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps-07-genart-lc-gurbani-2013-01-11-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. 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 Minor: - 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. Nits: - S3.1, third paragraph: I would suggest "s/user-land/user space". It is better to be academic than colloquial here. Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg at {bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani at alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/