Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-taps-interface-22: Discuss
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/ 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-taps-interface-22 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Discuss ### S6.1.12 * "there is currently no portable standard format for a PvD identifier" RFC 8801 should be considered here. An argument can be made that there is no *single* format, but there certainly is a string FQDN PvD ID standard. I think it's fair to require that the FQDN PvD ID strings be considered MTI here, or that an implementation have some way to use handles that refer to these. Maybe that's what's meant here by the integer option mention and I'm just not getting the clue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-taps-interface-22 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ # Comments ### S3 * "The application should not assume that ignoring events..." s/should not/SHOULD NOT/? ### S6.1 * "Connection can perform name resolution" Does the Connection do name resolution? I would have expected this to either be done by Preconnection or just "the API implementation". ### S6.1.3 * If calls like NewPreconnection() take an array of RemoteEndpoints why is it necessary to add one RemoteEndpoint to another via .AddAlias(), rather than just tossing into the []RemoteEndpoints array? ### S6.2 * It's probably too late for a bikeshed, but I find a Preference named "Ignore" to not mean "No Preference", as I read it. I would have expected something like a Preference of "None". To me, "Ignore" feels kinda somewhat like "Avoid" (or "Eschew" :D ). ### S6.2.1 * "without corruption"? I think I would have expected "without loss"; "without corruption" implies to me that there's some extra level of integrity checking go on (vis. S6.2.7). ### S6.2.13 * Why should the preference be Avoid for Rendezvous use cases? It seems to me like many Rendezvous uses are not necessarily long-lived and so might be Preference None (Ignore), or even Prefer. ### S9.1.3.7 * Same question as S6.2.1 above. ## Nits ### S5 * "Actions, events, and errors in implementations" -> "Action, event, and error objects in implementations" ### S6.1, S6.1.4 * "Port (a 16-bit integer)" Perhaps "unsigned integer", or "non-negative integer"? * ":0a" -> ":a", I think ### S6.1.5 * "newPreconnection(...)" -> "NewPreconnection(...)"? ### S9.1.3.10 * s/endpount/endpoint/ _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
