Re: [Dots] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[<[e-mail]>]

Suresh, 

We rearranged the text to better indicate where DOTS HE differs from 8305. You can check the changes at:

Txt: https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/blob/master/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31.txt 
Diff: https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31.txt%20draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31.pdf 

If any further change/clarification is needed, please let me know. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : jeudi 2 mai 2019 08:36
> À : Suresh Krishnan; The IESG
> Cc : [e-mail]; Liang Xia; dots-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : RE: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Re-,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Envoyé : mercredi 1 mai 2019 05:07
> > À : The IESG
> > Cc : [e-mail]; Liang Xia; dots-
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Objet : Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31:
> (with
> > DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: Discuss
> >
> > 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-dots-signal-channel/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This should be easy to clear up, but I would like to understand why this
> > document needs to restate the motivation and describe the algorithm for
> happy
> > eyeballs instead of simply stating that hosts should use RFC8305
> 
> [Med] We adopted this elaborated approach because there are specifics to the
> DOTS case that are called out in the text, e.g.,
> * probing to migrate the connection
> * caching (used to be in HE v1)
> 
> Also, unlike RFC8305:
> * we don't cancel all other connections upon establishment of one connection.
> * we don't forbid all attempts to be sent simultaneously.
> 
> All these details are described in the text.
> 
>  and then
> > specify that UDP must be tried before TCP in each of the address families.
> If
> > you do want to specify the whole algorithm here it needs to be more
> specific
> > than "in a manner similar to the Happy Eyeballs mechanism" as it is not
> clear
> > where it is similar (and where it will differ). It also looks like the
> > example
> > flow in Figure 4 is not consistent with the description before (TCP+IPv6
> > before
> > UDP+IPv4)
> 
> [Med] The text says the following:
> 
>    In reference to Figure 4, the DOTS client sends two TCP SYNs and two
>    DTLS ClientHello messages at the same time over IPv6 and IPv4.
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Ben suggested in his review to add annotations to Figure 4 but we didn't
> because we though this is redundant with the above text.
> 
> Will add annotations to Figure 4.
> 
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > * Section 7.3
> >
> > This text is wrong and needs to be removed
> >
> > "IP packets whose size does not exceed 576 bytes should never need to be
> > fragmented"
> >
> > RFC791 only requires all hosts to be prepared to accept datagrams of up to
> > 576 octets.
> >
> 
> [Med] Done.