[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 Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno/ 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 Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before it is submitted to the IESG. Comments: - 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) Nits: - 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 Thanks, -dimitri.