[tcpinc] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-12

Min Ye <amy.yemin@huawei.com> Mon, 30 October 2017 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D162B13FD24; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Min Ye <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
To: <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150932741880.3409.9749564373399664113@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:36:58 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/Wl3q_8Hq7umXId-aMuN6RSbaFjs>
Subject: [tcpinc] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-12
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 01:36:59 -0000

Reviewer: Papadimitriou Dimitri
Review result: Has Issues


I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.

As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to
determine whether the document has any potential impact on routing applications
(BGP, LDP, etc.).

Document: draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-12
Reviewer: D.Papadimitriou
Review Date: 28-10-2019
Intended Status: Experimental


I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before it is submitted to the IESG.


- May be the document can document if there is any modification for what
concerns closing of connections (in its current version the document provides a
requirement in Section 5 but no actual procedure)


- Include ref. for Section 3 on Terminology (SYN, ACK, etc.)

- Section 4 states " It uses a new TCP option kind " may be worth explaining
which *new* kind ?

- s/ 4.5.  The Negotiated Tep/ 4.5.  The Negotiated TEP