Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart Last Call assignment: draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

David,

On 23/03/2023 20:37, David Schinazi wrote:
> [ + usual email lists ]
>
> Hi Bob, thanks for your review!

[BB] That wasn't my review - working on it.


Bob

> Responses inline.
> David
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:27 AM Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     masque-connect-ip authors,
>
>     My apologies. I do still intend to send in my tsv-art review of
>     masque-connect-ip, but I'm running over a week late now.
>     (It seems that my turn for review comes up more often than not just
>     before the IETF meeting.)
>
>     I've got a number of detailed comments. But the main thing that's
>     taking
>     time is thinking through the potential interaction problems there
>     might
>     be when running a connectionless protocol as generic as IP through a
>     connection-oriented tunnel. Particularly given there might be another
>     connection-oriented protocol within the inner IP datagram.
>
>
> FWIW, the issue here isn't the fact that anything is connection-oriented.
> I don't think there is any problem to be had by running connectionless
> protocols over connection-oriented ones or vice versa. That said, what
> can make things interesting performance-wise is whether there are
> nested congestion controllers or nested loss recovery mechanisms.
>
>     This probably
>     needs a section akin to §6 of RFC9298, but I'm trying to think more
>     widely of problems that might not have been considered when the IP
>     packet was constrained to only encapsulate UDP.
>
>
> That's a fair ask. Mentioning what we know about nested loss recovery
> and about PMTUD can't hurt. I don't expect there to be much here in
> addition to what he had in s6 of RFC 9298 though, since the switch
> from UDP to IP won't change much (modulo IPv6 minimum MTU, which
> is already covered).
>
>     I don't see any place for discussion of this in the draft, so I
>     wondered
>     whether there has been ML discussion somewhere that worked through
>     all
>     this and decided there were no issues. If you could point me to
>     that it
>     would greatly help me.
>
>
> We had some good WG conversations about MTU here:
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip/issues/45
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip/issues/62
> The discussions around performance happened around RFC 9298,
> but we can copy that text here.
>
>     This email was not sent via the review tool, so apologies if I
>     haven't
>     got the email distros correct.
>
>     Bob
>
>     On 06/03/2023 08:42, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker wrote:
>     > Last Call review of: draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip (no specific
>     version)
>     > Deadline: 2023-03-15
>     > Pages: 36
>     > Requested by: (System)
>     >
>     >
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip/reviewrequest/17185/login/
>     >
>     > Magnus Westerlund has assigned Bob Briscoe as a reviewer for
>     this document.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>     -- 
>     ________________________________________________________________
>     Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/