[dtn] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-23: (with COMMENT)
Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 03 December 2020 06:34 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF153A044E; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 22:34:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4@ietf.org, dtn-chairs@ietf.org, dtn@ietf.org, Edward Birrane <edward.birrane@jhuapl.edu>, edward.birrane@jhuapl.edu
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <160697726664.8586.4102364235347318229@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 22:34:27 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/2toJQxT8vwLCMVK9RNnBDtJLRvc>
Subject: [dtn] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-23: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <dtn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtn/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 06:34:27 -0000
Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-23: 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-dtn-tcpclv4/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll not disagree with my predecessor, but "[[ discuss ]]" has some random thoughts that were rattling around in my head. [[ discuss ]] [ section 4.* ] * Instead of upgrading in-session to TLS after CH version and magic field verification, Can the TLS session be negotiated first and perhaps quickly closed based on some DTN-specific ALPN (perhaps "dtn")? Can the use of a DTN-specific ALPN be any help even with in-session TLS upgrade (as currently described)? [ section 4.7 ] * Selecting the minimum of the two session keepalive parameters, in the case where one side uses a value of zero, allows one side to disable all keepalives altogether. I think this might not be the best negotiated outcome if one node knows that it is behind a NAT gateway: that node might need to send session keepalives in order to maintain NAT binding state. [[ nits ]] [ section 3.4 ] * "This situation not ideal" -> "This situation is not ideal" [ section 4.4 ] * "entity MAY attempt use" -> "entity MAY attempt to use"
- [dtn] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn… Erik Kline via Datatracker
- Re: [dtn] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [dtn] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf… Brian Sipos