[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-19

Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 15 February 2021 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C123A1290; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:46:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.25.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <161342920774.21307.750639857551709675@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:46:47 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qy0Zu7sXEQ9zbC0JWvLq86LRC1E>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-19
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 22:46:48 -0000

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-19
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2021-02-15
IETF LC End Date: 2021-02-19
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: THis document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC

Major issues:

Minor issues:
     While section 2 does include a discussion of traffic mis-ordering, it does
     not include a discussion of ECMP, and the dependence of ECMP on flow
     identification to avoid significant packet mis-ordering.

    Section 5.1 of this document discusses the use of Hop-by-Hop IPv6 options. 
    It seems that it should acknowledge and discuss the applicability of the
    sentence "New hop-by-hop options are not recommended..." from section 4.8
    of RFC 8200.  I think a good argument can be made in this case as to why
    (based on the rest of the sentence from 8200) the recommendation does not
    apply to this proposal.  The document should make the argument.

Nits/editorial comments:
     I found the discussion of header compression slightly confusing.  Given
     that the TCP / UDP header is small even compared to the IP header, it is
     difficult to see why encrypting it would have a significant impact on
     header compression efficacy.

   The wording in section 6.2 on adding header information to an IP packet has
   the drawback of seeming to imply that one could add (or remove) such
   information in the network, without adding an encapsulating header.  That is
   not permitted by RFC 8200.  It would be good to clarify the first paragraph.
    (The example, which talks about the sender putting in the information is,
   of course, fine.)