Hi Alexey, On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melni...@isode.com> wrote:
> Hi Yoshi, > > On 2 Jan 2016, at 09:20, Yoshifumi Nishida <nish...@sfc.wide.ad.jp> wrote: > > Hi Alexey, > > Thanks for the comments. > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Alexey Melnikov < > alexey.melni...@isode.com> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Yes, It basically meant if people prefer (which means they understand its > advantage and disadvantage), this feature can be activated. > APIs or UIs can be implemented for this, but I'm not very sure if we > need.. Could you elaborate your concern here? > > > Your text sounds like a requirement on UIs (and not on APIs), I think you > meant a requirement on APIs (with no requirement on UIs, which might expose > this option anyway. I personally think that exposing this option to anybody > by application developers or system administrators is going to be a > mistake). So I think you should change "users'" to "applications'". I am > sorry if this sounds like nitpicking, but I think this is an important > difference. > Ok. I see your point. What we have presumed here is something like sysctl command which only administrators can run. This is because it might be difficult for endusers to know whether equally good paths a available or not. So, an example of the usage is administrators activate this feature after some discussions with their users or customers. If we say "enable it based on users' (e.g. system administrators) decisions", do you think it will be clearer? > In Section 7.1: should new constants be defined with specific numeric >> values, in order to improve interoperability? >> > > In my understanding, RFC6458 doesn't define specific numeric values. I > prefer to follow the convention of RFC6458 unless there are strong reasons. > > > How is ABI interoperability (binary interface interoperability between > different implementations, for example if they are implemented as shared > libraries) achieved with SCTP options? > The peer state value is exchanged only between an SCTP stack and its applications. It won't be exchanged between SCTP stacks. (SCTP stacks estimate their peers' state from packet loss and other info.) I think that's why RFC6458 didn't have to define numeric values. Thanks, -- Yoshi
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
