Subject: WGLC review comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-chunk-flags-00.txt

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:34:16 +0100

This is a review for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-chunk-flags-00.txt, submitted 
during the WGLC.

I have already read and reviewed the previous version and I see that 
those comments have been incorporated in this draft. The remaining 
comments therefore relate to wording, rather than document structure.

----
The abstract seems to motivate this as a WG item, rather than as the 
RFC-to-be. It currently states:

    The current definition of the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
    (SCTP) is missing a procedure for registering chunk flags for already
    defined chunk types.  This document defines this procedure.  It does
    not change SCTP in any other way.

It may be better to say something more like:

    This document defines the procedure for registering chunk flags with
    the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for the Stream
    Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). It updates RFC 4960, and
    also defines the IANA registry for contents for currently defined
    chunk types. It does not change SCTP in any other way.

----
Similarly in the introduction:

    [RFC4960], which currently defines the Stream Control Transmission
    Protocol (SCTP), provides a procedure to define new chunk types.
    However, several protocol extensions currently being discussed need
    to define new chunk flags for existing chunks.  The only way to do
    this is to obsolete [RFC4960], which is not appropriate.

Change the final sentence, perhaps to something like:

    Without publication of this document, the only way to have done
    this would have been to obsolete [RFC4960], which is not appropriate.

----
Later in the introduction:

    This document overcomes this limitation and provides the procedure to
    register chunk flags for existing chunk types.

Could be better as:

    This document updates RFC 4960 to overcome this limitation.
    It defines the procedure to register chunk flags, and specifies
    the registry entries for for existing chunk types.

----

Section 3 should clearly name the registry that IANA is requested to be 
used for the regiatry entries. The document shepherd write-up requires 
this question to be answered:

    "Does it suggest a  reasonable name for the new registry?
     See [RFC5226]."

This registry would be easier to identify if it were to be called 
something like the

"SCTP Chunk Flag Registry"
  ^^^^
----

Section 3.1

- Is the title best? Could this be clearer if it said:

"Procedure for Registration of New SCTP Chunk Types"

----

Section 3.2

Suggest that you change:
IANA selects a chunk flags value, exactly one
                                 ^^^

IANA selects a chunk flags value. This must be exactly one
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
----

Section 3.3

Suggest change:
    This section describes the initially defined chunk flag tables, one
    table per chunk.  Most of the tables are currently empty.

To this:
    This section describes the initial values of the chunk flag tables,
    one table for each chunk. Most tables are currently empty. IANA is
    to use these value to create the new registry.

----

If the WG recieves comments supporting publication of this document, I 
will be the document shepherd.

Best wishes,

Gorry

---

From: Michael Tüxen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:44:13 +0200

Hi Gorry,

thanks a lot for the comments. See my responses in-line.

Best regards
Michael

On Aug 24, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

> 
> This is a review for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-chunk-flags-00.txt, submitted during the WGLC.
> 
> I have already read and reviewed the previous version and I see that those comments have been incorporated in this draft. The remaining comments therefore relate to wording, rather than document structure.
> 
> ----
> The abstract seems to motivate this as a WG item, rather than as the RFC-to-be. It currently states:
> 
> 
OK, will be in rev 01.
>   this would have been to obsolete [RFC4960], which is not appropriate.
OK, will be in re 01.
>   the registry entries for for existing chunk types.
OK, will be in re 01.
> 
> Section 3 should clearly name the registry that IANA is requested to be used for the regiatry entries. The document shepherd write-up requires this question to be answered:
> 
> This registry would be easier to identify if it were to be called something like the
> 
OK, I change it to:
IANA is requested to create an SCTP Chunk Flag registry.
Will be in rev 01.
> "Procedure for Registration of New SCTP Chunk Types"
Section 3.1 replaces Section 14.1 of RFC 4960 which has the title "IETF-Defined Chunk Extension"
That is where the title comes from. When working on RFC 4960bis, Section 3.1 would
replace Section 14.1.
Does this title now make sense to you?
> IANA selects a chunk flags value. This must be exactly one
OK, will be in rev 01.
>   to use these value to create the new registry.
OK, will be in rev 01.
> 
> If the WG recieves comments supporting publication of this document, I will be the document shepherd.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Gorry
> 
> 
>

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:55:32 +0100

Thanks Micahel, one answer in-line.

Gorry

> Does this title now make sense to you?

Understood. Perhaps it would have been more obvious perhaps if you 
explicitly said mentioned that it replaced section 14.1.

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:35:09 +0200

Hi Gorry,

a comments in-line.

Best regards
Michael
On Aug 24, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

> Understood. Perhaps it would have been more obvious perhaps if you explicitly said mentioned that it replaced section 14.1.
Since I want Section 14.1 being replaced by Section 3.1, I'm not saying it in Section 3.1
but in Section 3:

3.  IANA Considerations

   Section 3.1 describes the updated procedure for chunk type
   registration and replaces Section 14.1 of [RFC4960].

OK?

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:14:11 +0100

This looks fine with me,

Gorry

---

From: Michael Tüxen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:57:27 +0200

Hi Gorry,

OK, then all your points will be addressed in the next revision. I'll wait
until the WG LC ends to see if more issues come up to also address them.

Thanks a lot for your feedback!

Best regards
Michael