[Masque] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-10: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-10: Yes

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to the authors for the document and for addressing my previous DISCUSS
points (see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/pv_wmj3wSaHgtqvEdzWuW9eZdTg/)

Hoping that the COMMENTS points below will help to improve the published
document (some PR are proposed in the above email thread but not yet merged as
far as I can tell -- all of them are non-blocking).

Regards

-éric

# COMMENTS (non blocking)

## Waiting for Last Call PR ?

May I suggest, next time, to wait until a revised I-D is submitted based on the
IETF Last Call before balloting ? E.g., the PR based on the sec-dir review is
not yet merged AFAIK.

## Section 3

`The URI Template MUST NOT contain any non-ASCII unicode characters and MUST
only contain ASCII characters in the range 0x21-0x7E inclusive` the fist part
of the sentence appears as useless as the second part is more restrictive.

## Section 4.1

In `establishes an IP tunnel` should the other side of the tunnel specified ?

## Section 4.6

Should the text also be clear that the proxy should only proxy packets *from*
the target to the client ?

## Section 4.7.1

Should the text specify what are the unused bits of the prefix when the prefix
length is not the address length ? I.e., is 2001:db8:cafe:babe:f00d::/32 a
valid prefix ?

## Section 4.7.3

In the previous sections, IP protocol could also be an IPv6 extension header.
I.e., using "0" as a wildcard value prevents using it to signal Hop-by-hop
extension header. Should 59 be used ? (even if no next header is only for IPv6)

BTW, I was about to ballot DISCUSS on this issue.

The reader (including myself and John Scudder per his ballot) would probably
welcome more explanations to understand why the usual CIDR/prefix notation for
routes is not used. I.e., some routers only use CIDR/prefix FIB entries and one
start-end range could translate in a lot of CIDR/prefix routes in the router
FIB.

## Section 7

Thanks for the text about link-local addresses and link-local multicast. But,
then it raises the question about which IP address to use when replying to a
link-local multicast ? I.e., can a global address be used in the absence of LLA
?

## Section 8

Please also add "hop-limit exceeded" in the non-exhaustive list of errors.

Should ICMP echo requests be mentioned ? (they are *not* error signaling but
are quite useful).

## Section 9.1

In `Such VPN setups can be either full-tunnel or split-tunnel` please define
(or add a reference) to full/split tunnel or simply do not mention those terms
now as they are defined later.

`using a source address in its assigned prefix` while the client has been
assigned a single /32 (i.e., the sentence is correct but could be confusing)

The legends of figures 15 and 16 use different templates ("capsule" in one
case) is it on purpose ?

Should the split-tunnel example have two routes to exclude 192.2.0.42 ?

## Section 12

RFC 5095 is probably not the best RFC about extension header security, there
have been many others notably in V6OPS by Fernando Gont et al.

Should there be an informative reference to RFC 6169 (Security Concerns with IP
Tunneling) ?

# NITS (non blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 4.1

s/via A and/or AAAA records/via A and/or AAAA resource records/ ?