Hi,

I have reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-14 as part of the
Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the
intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF
drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs
should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

I believe the document is 'Ready' for publication. I appreciate the
clear writing style.

Some comments follows:

- Should this I-D have an

  Updates: 4960

  header to indicate that it updates RFC 4960? The abstract says:

    The procedures defined in the document require only minimal
    modifications to the RFC4960 specification.

- Since the I-D introduces the new state Potentially Failed, does this
  imply that an update of the SCTP-MIB [RFC3873] (sctpAssocState) is
  needed as well? Are there additional MIB objects to report, e.g.,
  spt_pathpfthld and spt_pathcpthld? I see some additional SCTP
  related docs in TSVWG and perhaps after they have been completed an
  update of the SCTP-MIB would make sense to consider.

- s/Tel co signaling environments/telephony signaling environments/

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <

http://www.jacobs-university.de/

>