Re: [Taps] AD Evaluation on the relationship between draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-06 and draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-04

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF]

Hi, Michael,

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Michael Welzl  wrote:

>
> On Aug 24, 2017, at 10:24 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just to make these documents a bit more digestible by reviewers, ADs, and
> readers, who will almost certainly be reading them as a set ...
>
> I'm OK with the separation of the Pass 1 analysis of UDP(-lite) into a
> separate draft, but I wish the relationship was a little clearer. It seems
> like https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transports-
> usage-06#section-3.4 has more text describing UDP(-lite) than it needs,
> if it's just going to say "The set of Pass 1 primitives for UDP and
> UDP-Lite is documented in [FJ16].".
>
> If this makes sense to the working group, that description of UDP could be
> integrated into https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transports-
> usage-udp-04#section-3, which only has a one-sentence description of UDP
> itself before beginning its analysis.
>
>
> I agreed with the authors of the other document that this is the right way
> forward. This text in the -usage draft consisted of 3 paragraphs, followed
> by the sentence that you quote above (“The set of …”). I removed these
> preceding three paragraphs now.
>
>
> Is there any chance that each document could provide a pointer to the
> other document, in the Abstract and Introduction sections, and be clearer
> about the relationship there?
>
>
> While there was a pointer to the other document in the intro of the -usage
> draft already, I agree it wasn’t very clear, sorry!
> I now added, to both the intro and the abstract:
>
> "For UDP and UDP-Lite, the first step of the protocol analysis -- a
> discussion of relevant RFC text -- is documented in [FJ16].”
>
> Thanks a lot for your review!
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>

Oh, thank you! The fast path to IESG approval is to confuse the ADs as
little as possible :-)

Spencer
___
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

Re: [Taps] AD Evaluation on the relationship between draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-06 and draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-04

[Michael Welzl]

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 10:24 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF 
>  wrote:
> 
> Just to make these documents a bit more digestible by reviewers, ADs, and 
> readers, who will almost certainly be reading them as a set ...
> 
> I'm OK with the separation of the Pass 1 analysis of UDP(-lite) into a 
> separate draft, but I wish the relationship was a little clearer. It seems 
> like 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-06#section-3.4 
>  
> has more text describing UDP(-lite) than it needs, if it's just going to say 
> "The set of Pass 1 primitives for UDP and UDP-Lite is documented in [FJ16].". 
> 
> If  this makes sense to the working group, that description of UDP could be 
> integrated into 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-04#section-3 
> ,
>  which only has a one-sentence description of UDP itself before beginning its 
> analysis.

I agreed with the authors of the other document that this is the right way 
forward. This text in the -usage draft consisted of 3 paragraphs, followed by 
the sentence that you quote above (“The set of …”). I removed these preceding 
three paragraphs now.


> Is there any chance that each document could provide a pointer to the other 
> document, in the Abstract and Introduction sections, and be clearer about the 
> relationship there?

While there was a pointer to the other document in the intro of the -usage 
draft already, I agree it wasn’t very clear, sorry!
I now added, to both the intro and the abstract:

"For UDP and UDP-Lite, the first step of the protocol analysis -- a discussion 
of relevant RFC text -- is documented in [FJ16].”

Thanks a lot for your review!

Cheers,
Michael

___
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps