[core] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-new-block-11: (with COMMENT)

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-new-block-11: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated especially on the intended status/lack of public implementations).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

!!! I was about to ballot a DISCUSS on this point... In the absence of a
section about existing implementations for such a new transport, I really
wonder whether standard track should be used rather then experimental. Did the
authors/WG run some simulations ?

Happy to have read Colin Perkins' review for the Transport ART, which has
provided me with some confidence in this brand new transport protocol. I am
also trusting the TSV Area Directors on this point.

-- Section 1 --
I had in mind that constrained network are well protected either at layer-2 or
by having an air-gap or firewall at their edges, so, a DoS seems quite
improbable in those deployments. Should this 'use case' really be part of the
introduction? Or is it simply linked to the DOTS use case ? In either case, the
DoS should be more detailed.

-- Section 3 --
Any reason why 'CON' is not expanded/explained on first use ?