Thanks Joel for these helpful comments.
We think these issues could be addressed with a small number of
additional clarifications, see below:
On 15/02/2021 22:46, Joel Halpern via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-19
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2021-02-15
IETF LC End Date: 2021-02-19
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC
Major issues:
Minor issues:
While section 2 does include a discussion of traffic mis-ordering, it does
not include a discussion of ECMP, and the dependence of ECMP on flow
identification to avoid significant packet mis-ordering.
This was assumed, it can be added.
Section 5.1 of this document discusses the use of Hop-by-Hop IPv6 options.
It seems that it should acknowledge and discuss the applicability of the
sentence "New hop-by-hop options are not recommended..." from section 4.8
of RFC 8200. I think a good argument can be made in this case as to why
(based on the rest of the sentence from 8200) the recommendation does not
apply to this proposal. The document should make the argument.
I would be OK with adding this, if there is no objection.
Nits/editorial comments:
I found the discussion of header compression slightly confusing. Given
that the TCP / UDP header is small even compared to the IP header, it is
difficult to see why encrypting it would have a significant impact on
header compression efficacy.
I suspect this needs a preface that explains that HC methods are most
effective for bit-congestive links sending small packets (e.g. when
sending control packets or small data packets over radio links).
The wording in section 6.2 on adding header information to an IP packet has
the drawback of seeming to imply that one could add (or remove) such
information in the network, without adding an encapsulating header. That is
not permitted by RFC 8200. It would be good to clarify the first paragraph.
(The example, which talks about the sender putting in the information is,
of course, fine.)
I think that would indeed be useful to add.
Gorry
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
