Working Group,
I support adopting this document.
However I have one question; if it leads to (very small) changes in the
document, this can be done after the adoption.
I'm looking at
HMAC-SHA: Consists of two parts
HMAC: Hashed Message Authentication Code (expanded in the document).
SHA: Secure Hash Algorithm (not expanded, but on the other hand it an
well-known abbreviation)
When we combine two abbreviations what rules apply, is it enough that
eachpart is expanded "somewhere" even if the parts are found at
different places. Or does the rule "expand at first occurrence apply?
I guess that in part this depends on whether we view HMAC-SHA as one
unit or two separate parts? And how familiar we believe our readers are
with the abbreviations.
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but would suggest that we place
HMAC-SHA in the "Abbreviations" in section 2.2 and expamnd it fully.
On 30/10/2020 10:01, Chengli (Cheng Li) wrote:
Hi WG,
Support. However, there are some encoding format changes among versions,
hope the encoding format can be stable in the following revision ASAP.
Many thanks for the authors’ contribution!
Thanks,
Cheng
*From:* spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *James
Guichard
*Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:52 PM
*To:* spring@ietf.org
*Cc:* ippm-cha...@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org
*Subject:* [spring] WG Adoption Call for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11
Dear WG:
This message starts a 3 week WG adoption call for document
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11 ending
November 12^th 2020. Please note that this document has several changes
from v-10 that were requested by the SPRING and IPPM chairs. For this
reason, the chairs have extended the adoption call for an additional
week to allow the WG enough time to review these changes before deciding
on WG adoption.
Some background:
Several review comments were received previously for document
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10. The
SPRING and IPPM chairs considered those comments, and upon review of
this version of the document, determined the following:
* The SPRING document should describe only the procedures relevant to
SPRING with pointers to non-SPRING document/s that define any
extensions. Several extensions including*Control Code Field
Extension for TWAMP Light Messages*, *Loss Measurement Query Message
Extensions*, and *Loss Measurement Response Message Extensions *were
included in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 and
should be removed from the SPRING document.
* The TWAMP extensions included in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 should
be described in a new document published in the IPPM WG.
These conclusions were discussed with the authors of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 the result
of which is the publication of the following two documents:
* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11. The
subject of this WG adoption call.
* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00. This
document will be progressed (if determined by the WG) within the
IPPM WG.
After review of the SPRING document please indicate support (or not) for
WG adoption to the mailing list. Please also provide comments/reasons
for that support (or lack thereof) as silence will not be considered as
consent.
Finally, the chairs would like to thank the authors for their efforts in
this matter.
Thanks!
Jim, Bruno, & Joel
//
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--
Loa Andersson email: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi...@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
