[dhcwg] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-06
Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de> Wed, 01 November 2017 16:52 UTC
Return-Path: <ott@in.tum.de>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0180413F662; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qyBTqDMHKLJW; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de [131.159.0.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7424713F839; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix, from userid 107) id 9E2F11C2A1E; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 17:52:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: (Authenticated sender: ott) by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 747FB1C1350; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 17:52:06 +0100 (CET) (Extended-Queue-bit tech_aqhjx@fff.in.tum.de)
From: Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de>
To: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port@tools.ietf.org, tsv-art@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <28cf5d0f-091c-c917-a6ea-06a2262cd7fc@in.tum.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 17:52:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/ixKcbrma6WMaKd9Tds7W_7LCRkA>
Subject: [dhcwg] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-06
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 16:52:16 -0000
Hi, I’ve reviewed this document as part of the transport area review team's 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@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. Jörg Summary: This draft is essentially ready. I do not see any transport-specific issues. Comments: It seems that in a few places, the document does not use RFC 2119 keywords where they could/should be used. For example, in the introduction paragraph to section 4 and in section 5.2 (right after the enumeration). Not sure if the non-use was intentional or an oversight. Nit: p.3: This is a standards track document, so the language could be stronger. OLD: This document proposes an extension to relax the fixed UDP source NEW: This document defines an extension to relax the fixed UDP source