I am trying to get review written up before your masque WG mtg. But...
Writing up my review stalled over the last few days, 'cos I focused on end of WGLC of one of my large drafts (just finished write-up of all the reviews).
My time tomorrow has just been DoS'd by my new line manager (I'm consulting for Apple), which is when I was planning to complete your review write up.
Might still do it tomorrow, but no promises. If/when you get it, it will be long, I'm afraid.
Bob
On 23/03/2023 22:36, Bob Briscoe wrote:
David,
On 23/03/2023 20:37, David Schinazi wrote:
[ + usual email lists ]Hi Bob, thanks for your review!
[BB] That wasn't my review - working on it.
Bob
Responses inline.David
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:27 AM Bob Briscoe <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
masque-connect-ip authors,
My apologies. I do still intend to send in my tsv-art review of
masque-connect-ip, but I'm running over a week late now.
(It seems that my turn for review comes up more often than not just
before the IETF meeting.)
I've got a number of detailed comments. But the main thing that's taking
time is thinking through the potential interaction problems there might
be when running a connectionless protocol as generic as IP through a
connection-oriented tunnel. Particularly given there might be another
connection-oriented protocol within the inner IP datagram.
FWIW, the issue here isn't the fact that anything is connection-oriented.I don't think there is any problem to be had by running connectionlessprotocols over connection-oriented ones or vice versa. That said, whatcan make things interesting performance-wise is whether there arenested congestion controllers or nested loss recovery mechanisms.This probably
needs a section akin to §6 of RFC9298, but I'm trying to think more
widely of problems that might not have been considered when the IP
packet was constrained to only encapsulate UDP.
That's a fair ask. Mentioning what we know about nested loss recoveryand about PMTUD can't hurt. I don't expect there to be much here inaddition to what he had in s6 of RFC 9298 though, since the switchfrom UDP to IP won't change much (modulo IPv6 minimum MTU, whichis already covered).
I don't see any place for discussion of this in the draft, so I wondered
whether there has been ML discussion somewhere that worked through all
this and decided there were no issues. If you could point me to that it
would greatly help me.
We had some good WG conversations about MTU here:The discussions around performance happened around RFC 9298,but we can copy that text here.
This email was not sent via the review tool, so apologies if I haven't
got the email distros correct.
Bob
On 06/03/2023 08:42, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker wrote:
> Last Call review of: draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip (no specific version)
> Deadline: 2023-03-15
> Pages: 36
> Requested by: (System)
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip/reviewrequest/17185/login/
>
> Magnus Westerlund has assigned Bob Briscoe as a reviewer for this document.
>
>
>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
-- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
-- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
