CC'ing tsv-art...
Hi, all,
I've reviewed this document as part of the Transport Area
Review Team's (TSVART) ongoing effort to review key IETF
documents. These comments were written primarily for the
transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors for their information and to allow them to address any
issues raised. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the
authors should consider this review together with any other
last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@xxxxxxxx
if you reply to or forward this review.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the
draft.
Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel
Title: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames in CAPWAP
Reviewer: J. Touch
Review Date: Sept 26, 2016
IETF Last Call Date: Sept 16, 2016
Summary: This
doc refers to existing tunneling specifications, many of
which are inconsistent or incorrect. In particular, there
are potential complicatinos with MTU support and signalling
that could affect transport protocols.
Major issues:
As already noted in draft-intarea-tunnels, many
existing tunnel mechanisms are inconsistent or incorrect in
their support for IPv6 MTU requirements, both as transits
for IP packets and as IP endpoints. Although this document
cites existing standards, the inconsistency and
incorrectness of these standards should be addressed. It
might be sufficient to indicate that any tunneling mechanism
selected MUST support the minimum IPv6 MTU requirements
independent of this signalling mechanism (i.e, the
signalling mechanism doesn't address or correct any errors
or inconsistencies in the tunnel mechanism selected).
Regarding IP endpoint requirements, it might be
useful to consider whether this protocol could be extended
to indicate the receiver payload reassembly limit when
indicating support for each tunnel type, to assist the
source in determining whether the resulting tunnel will be
IPv6 compliant (rather than becoming a black hole for valid
packet sizes).
Additionally, for the transport protocol-based
tunnels, it would be useful to consider whether the protocol
could indicate not only the endpoint IP address but the port
number as well.
Minor issues:
It might be useful to consider IPsec TLS, and DTLS
tunnels as well as those already listed.
---