[pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-port-set/



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


- section 4, last sentence: I didn't get why this MUST NOT was
needed. I've no clue if it'd be obvious to a PCP implementer
or not though. 4.2 does say though, maybe consider moving the
note up?

- 4.1: size == 0xffff has gotta be operationally dangerous,
I'm surprised you don't have a bunch of caveats on it's use.
Shouldn't you have at least some guidance in 4.2 for that as
well? 6.1 and section 7 cover this though I guess. 

- 4.2: Is there a possible troublesome case where the client
asks for parity and gets that but gets fewer ports than
requested? E.g. if client wants 6 with parity and only gets 5,
then the client might not be able to use that as it really
needs 3 pairs of ports. Did you consider saying that a server
has to return an even number of ports if parity is requested?
(Or would that make sense?, I'm not sure:-)