[tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-16: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-16: 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-tcpinc-tcpeno/



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

This is looking good. A few small comments:

   ENO provides a framework in which two endpoints can agree on a TCP
   encryption protocol or _TEP_ out of multiple possible TEPs.  For
   future compatibility, TEPs can vary widely in terms of wire format,
Nit: instead of "or _TEP_" I would say (_TEP_). These are the same thing

   suboptions, which we term a _vacuous_ SYN-form ENO option.  If either
   host sends a vacuous ENO option, it follows that there are no valid
   TEP identifiers for the connection and hence the connection MUST fall
do you mean "vacuous SYN-form ENO option' here?

                (1) A -> B:  SYN      ENO<a=0,X,Y>
                (2) B -> A:  SYN-ACK
Oh, I now see why you were sad. I meant *b=0*, so it makes clear why the roles
resolve properly. My bad.

I agree you don't need to show a=0 all the time. So sorry.