Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-converters-08

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 02 July 2019 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7AC120047; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 02:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q6DNiymDe3Sl; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 02:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26D01120043; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 02:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.66]) by opfednr24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45dJH71Jxjz205x; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:05:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.89]) by opfednr02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45dJH70Gpfz8sYK; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:05:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e8a4:8bb:d7c2:f4e2%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:05:22 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>, "Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
CC: "tcpm-chairs@ietf.org" <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-converters-08
Thread-Index: AdUrckm1sQAV9Sf8TqW1iT6fsU2DwgBZdsDwAMW68XAAMI3dUA==
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:05:22 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EAB0E38@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D35AB8E@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <LNXP123MB258781EFAC897351EDB153E2EBFD0@LNXP123MB2587.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <LNXP123MB2587CCAD2E17277EAFD6E078EBF90@LNXP123MB2587.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <LNXP123MB2587CCAD2E17277EAFD6E078EBF90@LNXP123MB2587.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/2KMUIhMKYKuPHE96IVfrjkryo5E>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-converters-08
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 09:05:27 -0000

Hi Phil,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> philip.eardley@bt.com
> Envoyé : lundi 1 juillet 2019 12:04
> À : philip.eardley@bt.com; Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de; tcpm@ietf.org
> Cc : tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-converters-08
> 
> Finishing my review...
> 
> Section 4.2.8 Error TLV
> Resource exceeded & Network failure
> " The
>       Transport Converter may indicate in the Value field the suggested
>       delay (in seconds) that the Client SHOULD wait before soliciting
>       the Transport Converter for a new proxied connection.  A Value of
>       zero corresponds to a default delay of at least 30 seconds."
> Are there any circumstances in which a Transport Converter may want to
> suggest that the Client waits less than one second before re-trying?

[Med] The errors we identified so far do not have such requirements. 

> 
> Section 7.5 Multipath TCP-specific Considerations
> " aggregation service" -> multipath TCP converter service?

[Med] OK.

> 
> " This method does not require any interaction
>       with the Transport Converter." [twice]
> You could say interaction of what (since something is interacting with
> it!)

[Med] added "... for authorization matters."

> 
> Section 8 IANA Considerations
> Convert TLVs
> It has a range assigned via IETF review, a range assigned via
> Specification required and a range for Private use. Wouldn't it be simpler
> to choose either IETF review or Specification required (plus private use)?
> I think Specification required would be ok, given the RFC will be
> Experimental.

[Med] We are simplifying the assignment for some code points while allowing for a range to be reserved to key extensions. This is simple compared to "Standards Action" I have seen in some experimental RFCs! 

> 
> Convert Error Messages
> It has a range assigned via IETF review and a range assigned via
> Specification required.
> Same comment as above, except more strongly - for error messages, IETF
> review seems excessive to me.

[Med] Why? The same considerations (interoperability) apply for the error codes and TLVs.  

> Also, would it be useful to have some space for Private use?

[Med] Makes sense. 

> 
> Section 11 Example Socket API Changes to Support the 0-RTT Convert
> Protocol
> " As an example, on Linux, a client can send the 0-RTT Convert message
>    inside a SYN by using sendto with the MSG_FASTOPEN flag as shown in
>    the example below"
> Is this example right?

[Med] Yes. 

 Since Transport Converter now uses TLV messages
> rather than TFO?

[Med] This is about the control flags. 

> 
> Section 12
> " A recently
>    proposed extension to SOCKS also leverages the TFO option"
> I think "also" should be deleted (since Transport Converter now uses TLV
> messages rather than TFO)

[Med] OK.

> 
> Section 13
> [RFC6824]
> Would be good to update to the bis document (which has currently completed
> IESG - I think waiting for AD follow-up)

[Med] Will consider this once the bis is sent to the RFC editor. 

FWIW, the changes to address this review can be seen at: https://github.com/obonaventure/draft-tcp-converters/pull/65/files 

> 
> Thanks - best wishes,
> phil