Subject: [OPSAWG] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:57:00 -0800

Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-04: No Objection

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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No objection to the publication of this draft, but of course a number of
comments about Section 3.10 on Transport protocols:

- Req-ID:  10.001: Not sure if this is really a requirement for a
transport protocol. I would read this as a requirement for the
implementation of a transport protocol. 

- Req-ID:  10.002 says
      Description:  Diverse applications need a reliable transport of
      messages.  The reliability might be achieved based on a transport
      protocol such as TCP or can be supported based on message
      repetition if an acknowledgment is missing.

Repitition without any limitation on the number of repititions, etc is
not a feature of a reliable transport protocol. I would remove "or can be
supported based on message repetition if an acknowledgment is missing".
Otherwise the text will blow up when you try to specific what features a
reliable transport protocol should have. 

- Req-ID:  10.003: Multicast is not a feature of the transport layer.

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:46:32 +0000

Hi Martin,

thank you for your comments.

> implementation of a transport protocol.

The requirement was not meant to be for a particular transport protocol.
The requirement involves indeed the upper layer with message transport.
A simple example is the use of CoAP avoiding message fragmentation.

I would like to propose following change:

s/scalable transport layer/scalable message transport/

> reliable transport protocol should have.

If we remove the part you meant I think we are losing something.
I would like to suggest to change as following.

OLD:
      The reliability might be achieved based on a transport
      protocol such as TCP or can be supported based on message
      repetition if an acknowledgment is missing.
NEW:
      The reliability might be achieved based on a transport
      protocol such as TCP or can be supported using a message
      repetition for the message transport.

> - Req-ID:  10.003: Multicast is not a feature of the transport layer.

The requirement is leaned on message transport.

With this may be should also change the subsection title to:
3.10. Transport layer and Message Transport 

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:57 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-04: (with COMMENT)

- Req-ID:  10.002 says

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 23:43:59 -0800

thanks mehmet

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 21:37:22 +0100

Hi Mehmet,

All your proposed changes looks good, including the change of the 
Section proposed at the very end of the emails.

Thans and schöne Grüße nach München!

   Martin