Re: [tcpm] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

Thanks for addressing my comments. My reflection on the proposals inline below with [ZS] tag.

I will clear my discuss based on this resolutions.

//Zahed

-----Original Message-----
From: Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]> 
Sent: den 5 september 2022 10:52
To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Zahed,

Thanks for these good comments and sorry that it took so long to prepare a reply.

The authors have published a version -08 that hopefully addresses all these issues. The full diff for -08 is available at:  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-08

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:53 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07: Discuss
> 
> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT 
> positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for working on this useful specification.
> 
> I have noted the following which I think needs cross checking to make 
> the meaning clear, it might be simple oversight or intentional. I 
> would like to which one is correct.
> 
> - Section 4 :
>      - any reason why the leaf send_id and recv_id does not use normative
>      "MUST" in the description?

I don't think that this is a normative "MUST". In order to avoid any ambiguity, I have reworded this to:

  In a consistent configuration, the SendID matches the RecvID at the other endpoint.

Please let us know if this does not work for you.

[ZS] It does and not the description here also fits best with RFC 5925 section 3.1. 

>      - how should we interpret strongly " RECOMMENDED"? is this a MUST or
>      RECOMMENDED?

The use of TCP-AO is RECOMMENDED. The new wording in -08 is:

  As the TCP MD5 signature option is obsoleted by TCP-AO, it is	RECOMMENDED to use TCP-AO instead. 

Again, please let us know if this does not address your concern.

[ZS] Good.

> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> I have some minor observations, which we might want to address -
> 
> - Section 3.1 : It is not clear to me what is the difference between a 
> "Global configuration" and "Policies". To me policies can include 
> global configurations that will valid for all the TCP sessions. So, it 
> is not clear is policy is a special case of global configuration or vise verse.  Also the term "Global"
> here seems ambiguous. I kind of read that as a global variable 
> definition, still the text need to be clear about the scope of 
> "Global" is self, global to what context?

Agreed, this terminology may not be perfect. In particular, the term "policy" can mean many things. The proposal is to avoid it with the following new terms:

*  System-wide configuration

*  Interface configuration

*  Connection parameters

*  Application preferences

I hope that this better captures the different cases.

[ZS] System-wide configuration a bit more clear than Global. I was thinking if it is work clarifying the scope of the "System", is this the local host only? 

Application preferences is good. 

> - What are we really following when we say "directly following from 
> TCP standards."? a reference is needed here to understand what is meant here.

I have just removed these words as they are not really needed anyway.

[ZS] 😊, good