Skip to main content

Transport Features of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and Lightweight UDP (UDP-Lite)
RFC 8304

Yes

(Spencer Dawkins)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Adam Roach)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana
No Objection
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2017-09-13 for -06)
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.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -06)

                            
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06)

                            
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06)

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06)

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-09-13 for -06)
- 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
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06)

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06)

                            
Mirja K├╝hlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-09-11 for -06)
Question: Given this is pass 1 (describing the (abstract) API as defined in the spec), why is there a LISTEN for UDP?
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-09-13 for -06)
* 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.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06)