Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) Q.921-User Adaptation Layer
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
(Thomas Narten) Discuss
Discuss (2004-10-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
IANA considerations needs work; placeholder for more detailed comments to follow...
(Jon Peterson) Yes
(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection
Comment (2004-10-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
Reviewed by Mary Barnes, Gen-ART Her review: Summary: -------- Draft should be ready for publishing as a proposed standard with the correction of the nits identified below. Caveat: ------- I primarily focused on the identified deltas from RFC 3057, however, there were some things that were also in RFC 3057 that I think should be corrected since they'll be editting anyways to correct the template. Nits: ----- - Needs updating to new template reflecting RFC 3668/3667. Note also that the copyright in the back, as well as the front, needs updating as it's currently dated 2001. - Section 1.4.3: "A set of primitives....are defined..." should read "A set of primitives...is defined..." - Section 1.5.1: "TEI" and "SAPI" should be expanded here (they're not defined until section 3.2 on page 19 ). - Section 2.0, I would suggest moving the reference to RFC 2119 conventions to the beginning of section 1.2 since those conventions are used prior to section 2.0. - Section 3.2, page 18, Figure 6 should be labeled as Figure 5 (this was an error left from the movement of Figure 2 in RFC 3057 to the appendix). - Section 9.1, Reference , Is there not a draft name to associate with this reference or should this be RFC3788? [I didn't search the internet drafts archive for a bis draft, but didn't see one listed on the WG charter page.]
(Steven Bellovin) No Objection
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) No Objection
Comment (2004-10-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
The optional INFO String parameter can carry any meaningful 8-bit ASCII character string along with the message. Length of the INFO String parameter is from 0 to 255 characters. No procedures are presently identified for its use but the INFO String MAY be used for debugging purposes. NIT--> The ASCII pointer is present in the references, but not listed here. Also, I'm wondering if they considered using UTF-8 in INFO and rejected, or it just wasn't on the table (not a blocking comment--just curious)
(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Allison Mankin) No Objection
Comment (2004-10-13 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
The SCTP (and UDP/TCP) Registered User Port Number Assignment for IUA is 9900. It's an accident of (former) IANA practices that IUA has a UDP port number, which it will never use, and confusing for it to be mentioned. I think the mention should be excised. Should the port also be de-assigned? ------- Section 184.108.40.206 provides for an optional heartbeat use if SCTP is not used. It really should give guidance for the "provisional timer T(beat)" similar to the guidance in sections 8.3 and 14 of RFC 2960 (SCTP) about setting HB.interval, jittering it, and otherwise managing it for good engineering usage. ------- Editorial: In these cases, the SCTP functions above MAY NOT be a requirement and TCP can be used as the underlying common transport protocol. MAY NOT isn't even one of the RFC 2119 terms. As a native English speaker, I make out what they mean, but since "may not" often means "is not permitted to be", please change this (with an RFC Editor Note is fine) to something like: In these cases, the SCTP functions MAY be found not to be a requirement and TCP MAY be used as the underlying common transport protocol.