Dear Éric, Many thanks - to you, as well as all the people you mention!
Regarding the “I would appreciate a reply by the authors, esp on issue 1” to Tatuya Jinmei’s review: working on it :-) Regarding your other comments (really *all* comments, including all others from Tatuya Jinmei): I hope it’s ok that, instead of following up via email, we discuss and address them via our github, where we deal with them swiftly as they come in: https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues <https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues> As you can see, I have already filed issues there for your comments below. Cheers, Michael > On 5 Sep 2023, at 15:05, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-taps-interface-22: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/> > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-interface/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-interface/> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-taps-interface-22 > > Thank you for the work put into this document. > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. > > Special thanks to Anna Brunstrom for the shepherd's detailed write-up > including > the WG consensus, and the justification of the intended status and of the > large > number of authors. I can only support having all those authors cited > (especially from current/past academia). > > Other thanks to Tatuya Jinmei, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my > request), please consider this int-dir review: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-taps-interface-22-intdir-telechat-jinmei-2023-09-01/ > (while a positive review, I would appreciate a reply by authors, esp on issue > 1) > > Other thanks to Matt Brown, the DNS directorate reviewer (at my request), > please consider this dns -dir review: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-taps-interface-22-dnsdir-telechat-brown-2023-08-27/ > > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > # COMMENTS > > ## Abstract and Section 1 > > It is not only about "multiple interfaces" but also about "multiple > provisioning domains" (usually linked to interfaces), e.g., an interface can > have several IPv6 addresses and several next-hops. RFC 7556 is only mentioned > in Section 2. > > ## Section 1 > > `Action(param0, param1?, ...) / Event<param0, param1, ...>` the use of `\` is > unclear... suggest using two lines ? Should param1 in Event() also be suffixed > by a '?' ? > > Is `IP Address` scoped ? E.g., fe80::1%eth0 Can it be unicast, anycast, > multicast ? Even if section 6.1 is about this issue, it may be worth already > telling the readers. > > ## Section 3 > > `from a Remote Endpoint` does the use of 'a' preclude a multicast group > endpoint ? > > ## Section 3.1 > > Useful section. Thanks. > > ## Section 4.1 > > It is a little underspecified whether the '.' is also removed when the > Namespace component is omitted (I guess yes, but let's be specific). > > Should 'tcp' be in uppercase in `tcp Connection could support ` ? > > `IETF document published in the RFC Series` in which stream ? Are ISE or IAB > or > IRTF streams also OK ? > > ## Section 5 > > If not mistaken, then there are only 3 occurrences of a normative SHOULD and > several other non-normative "should". Is it the intent ? > > ## Section 6.1 > > I am not sure whether I like the split between .WithIPAddress() and > .WithInterface()... E.g., using "fe80::1%eth0" as an endpoint would be nicer ? > > Should there be a .WithPvD() to handle multiple PvDs on the same interface ? > Even after reading section 6.2.12, it is unclear. > > ## Section 6.1.1 > > TTL is so legacy... Why not using RFC 8200 hop limit ? > > # NITS > > ## Section 6.1 and other places > > 2001:db8:4920:e29d:a420:7461:7073:0a is not a valid RFC 5952 address ;-) > > ## Section 8.1.11.13 > > s/It specified as the number of bytes/It *is* specified as *a* number of > bytes/ > ? > > >
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
