[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 []) 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-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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (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 []) (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, 1 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


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.


This draft is essentially ready.  I do not see any transport-specific

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.

p.3: This is a standards track document, so the language could be

This document proposes an extension to relax the fixed UDP source

This document defines an extension to relax the fixed UDP source