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

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

[ + usual email lists ]

Hi Bob, thanks for your review! 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/
>
>