[core] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-12: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated).

Eliot Lear (in copy) has also reviewed the document as IoT directorate reviewer
at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-12-iotdir-telechat-lear-2021-02-05/
So, please address/reply to his comment.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2.2 --
"The Echo option value is a challenge from the server to the client..." Just
wondering whether "echo" is the right choice for the option as it is too close
to ICMP_ECHO_REQUEST, why not "challenge" ?

I would have expected some statements related to non-idempotent requests
(generic statement) and then specific examples such as actuators.

-- Section 2.2.1 --
Are the authors confident enough to state a minimum length of 1 octet ? If the
intent of the document is to prevent replay attack, then I wonder whether one
octet is enough... Unsure whether Section 5 (security considerations) addresses
this issue correctly.