On 27/01/2025 20:16, Russ Housley via
Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Almost Ready I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-20 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2025-01-27 IETF LC End Date: 2024-10-17 IESG Telechat date: 2025-04-03 Summary: Almost Ready Thank you for addressing my previous comments. Major Concerns: Section 3.2.4: Since none of the Key Types is mandatory-to-implement, it is possible that two implementations of this specification will not interoperate. I realize that the Key Type have very different security implications. Also, mandatory-to-implement does not make that Key Type mandatory-to-use. Policy has a role too. Section 8: The IANA registry indicates that Feature Number 10 was given a temporary assignment. I expected to see a similar temporary assignment for Option Type 46. This document seems to depend on that value being assigned by IANA. Minor Concerns: None. Nits: Section 3.11.2: Please add white space between the adjacent paragraphs. Section 8: s/Sect. Section 3.1 specifies/Section 3.1 specifies/
Thanks Russ for this review! Just one wee update: I think your comment on Section 8 might be only editorial. The WG has already approved this (in Feb 2024), and IANA ha actioned a provisional assignment in the registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dccp-parameters/dccp-parameters.xhtml#dccp-parameters-7
| 10 | Multipath Capable (TEMPORARY - registered 2024-03-12, expires 2025-03-12) | [RFC-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-13] |
I expect the only action could be for the I-D ought to be revised to say that "10" is a provisional allocation.
Best wishes,
Gorry
(TSVWG Co-Chair)
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
