On 9/1/18 10:43 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
Hi, Michael,
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 15:35 Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no
<mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no>> wrote:
Hi Spencer,
See below:
On Aug 31, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
<spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com
<mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks, Robert, for the careful read, and thanks, Michael, for
the quick response. I have one thought, on Robert's last question.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:37 AM Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no
<mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no>> wrote:
Hi,
Thank you very much for this careful review! We just posted
a revision ( -07 ) that, we believe, addresses these comments.
A few answers in line below:
> On 28 Aug 2018, at 23:38, Robert Sparks
<rjspa...@nostrum.com <mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com>> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Ready with Nits
...
> In Appendix A.1, this document had to "slightly change" the
> characterization of features from those in RFC8303,
introducing this
> "ADDED" construct. That feels out of balance. Is this a
warning sign
> that RFC8303 needs adjusting?
It isn't: different from this document, RFC 8303 does not
make any changes or derive anything from the services that
protocols offer - it just reflects what the protocol
specifications say.
In the minset document, there are only 3 items using the
"ADDED" construct, and this is only meant to streamline the
derivation a little. Take "Unreliably transfer a message",
for example.
This is based on (from RFC 8303) "Unreliably transfer a
message, with congestion control" for SCTP, and "Unreliably
transfer a message, without congestion control" for
UDP(-Lite). The added "Unreliably transfer a message" leaves
the choice of congestion control open, such that an
application CAN simply say "Unreliably transfer a message"
without having to care about the choice of congestion control
(unless it wants to care, which comes at the cost of binding
itself to either UDP(-Lite) or SCTP).
Michael, this explanation helps a lot, but since I happen to know
that Robert is out of town for the three-day weekend in the US,
I'll guess on his behalf that "ADDED" may not be the word you're
looking for - at a minimum, "transfer unreliably" in RFC 8303
being divided into "transfer unreliably with congestion control"
and "transfer unreliably without congestion control" in this
draft doesn't look like addition to me.
Is this more about "refactoring the protocol-independent
definition in RFC 8303”?
Yes, “refactoring” is exactly right - it’s not adding anything
new. We could just as well have left this without the “ADDED”
cases and then had more explanations in the “discussions” section
(appendix A.3), but these are so minor that they don’t really
merit a “discussion”, hence we felt that this way it’s shorter and
clearer.
If that helps, I can rename “ADDED” into “REFACTORED”?
With that explanation, the single word without the explanation above
feels like insider knowledge.
Maybe adding a sentence explaining exactly what you say above at the
point you introduce the term would be enough, then the term-name itself
wouldn't matter as much.
I'll let you and Robert resynchronize on this, now that I think you'll
be talking about the same thing.
I'll watch, if I'm needed, of course.
Spencer
Cheers,
Michael
But, whatever it is, if you two can figure out how to describe
what's happening, that will probably help figure you and Robert
agree on an understanding about how to handle his comment.
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
