[Taps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: 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-taps-transports-usage/



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

Fully editorial comments:

- First paragraph in intro: s/underlying TAPS system/underlying Transport
Services (TAPS) system/

- This should not use normative language: "TCP implementations MUST NOT use TFO
by default..." (see comment from EKR)

- Also there is half a sentence missing in the same paragraph: "more than TCP's
maximum segment size (minus options used in the SYN)."

- s/Differentiated Services (diffuser)/Differentiated Services (diffserv)/ or
s/Differentiated Services (diffuser)/Differentiated Services (DiffServ)/

- I (still) don't understand why draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp was kept
in a separate document, given there is even a separate empty section in this
doc. You basically have to stop reading there, go to the other doc, read it,
and come back. That doesn't make sense to me.