[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.