[core] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: 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-hop-limit/



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

** Section 1.0, What is an “involved application agent”?

** Section 1.1 Per “CoAP proxies that do not have specific knowledge that proxy
loops are avoided in some way …”, how would a proxy know that?

** Section 7.  Perhaps also add that a malicious proxy can induce more subtle
failures than just straight packet drops by manipulating the Hop Limit value.

** Editorial Nits:

-- Section 1.1.  Editorial. s/ The Hop-Limit option has originally been
designed for a/The Hop-Limit option was originally designed for a/

-- Section 3.  Recommend being clearer on what it means for “Hop-Limit
detection gets broken” when proxies on boundaries re-write the hop limit value.
 Perhaps something on the order of: s/ This modification should be done with
caution in case proxy-forwarded traffic repeatedly crosses the administrative
domain boundary in a loop and so Hop-Limit detection gets broken ./ This
modification should be done with caution in case proxy-forwarded traffic
repeatedly crosses the administrative domain boundary in a loop rendering
negating the efficacy of loop detection through the Hop-Limit field.

-- Section 4.  Per “Only one information per proxy should appear in the
diagnostic payload”, what is “one information” (it seems like a few words are
missing here)?

-- Section 4.  Per “Doing so allows to limit the size of the TBA1 …”, this
sentence doesn’t parse for me.