[Int-dir] Int Dir telechat review of draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi:

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks (-11). These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.

Reviewer: Bernie Volz
Review result: Ready (with minor nits)

Minor nits:

Section 2 should probably be updated to use the newer keyword boilerplate (to reference RFC8174, etc.)?

In Section 4.1.2 RTO is used (and also later) but this isn't defined until section 4.2.4. Perhaps this is better defined when first used?

In section 4.2.2, the following paragraph is a bit odd:


   One potentially relevant TCP option in the context of CNNs is TCP

   Fast Open (TFO) [RFC7413<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7413>].  As described in Section 5.3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11#section-5.3>, TFO can be

   used to address the problem of traversing middleboxes that perform

   early filter state record deletion.

Fast open isn't really used to address this issue. Section 5.3 is about "TCP connection lifetime" and TFO is discussed there in the context of reducing the (initial) messages and latency. Perhaps this paragraph needs to be reworked a bit? If the point is about TFO, then you should indicate what it is for (about optimizing short lived connections)?

General: While RFC-editor will do, s/subsection/section is probably a good idea as subsection isn't generally used in IETF documents when doing references.

For section 8, it is too bad that some version/release information about the particular "code" analyzed wasn't included. It says "be aware that this Annex is based on information available as of the writing". But will that still be valid when the RFC finally becomes available? Work started on the document in Oct 2016 and I didn't go back to see when the various sections were added. On the other hand, perhaps these implementations don't evolve as rapidly as general software? It does seem to be a nice survey of the available implementations.

And, there are at least the following typos:

characterstic
codesize (perhaps code size)
bandwitdh
practise
differrent
communcation


  *   Bernie