[Dots] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-28: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-28: 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-dots-data-channel/



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


Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. Alexey covered all of my
substantive comments, and I support his DISCUSS; I only have a few editorial
nits to suggest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ID Nits reports:

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
     being 5 characters in excess of 72.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.4:

>  its own information (e.g., server names, literal IP addresses) is
>  present in the "Via" header of a DOTS message it receives:

Nit: "...header field..."

>     header, the DOTS gateway MUST NOT forward the DOTS message.

Nit: "...header field..."

>  error-info:     <via-header> : A copy of the Via header when

Nit: "<via-header-field>...header field..."

>  o  Otherwise, the DOTS agent MUST update or insert the "Via" header
>     by appending its own information.

Nit: "...header field..."

>  DOTS client domain SHOULD remove the previous "Via" header
>  information after checking for a loop before forwarding.  This

Nit: "...header field..."