| Gory:
Given the number of places in the document that already have 46 (as opposed to TBD), I do not think it is editorial.
Russ On Jan 29, 2025, at 11:34 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
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
