Re: [tcpm] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25: (with COMMENT)

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

> On 23 Sep 2021, at 04:59, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-rfc793bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you to Kyle Rose for the SECDIR review.
> 
> I support Ben, Lars, Warren and Zahed’s DISCUSS positions.
> 
> ** Appendix A.1 and the shepherd write-up which explains why the antiquated
> text around “security compartments” for multi-level systems is still in this
> draft.  It’s disappointing that there was no prior IETF consensus action to
> establish the basis of pruning it.  My suggested addition for Appendix A.1
> would be to make a much clearer statement than “the state of IP security
> options that may be used by MLS systems is not as clean”.  It isn’t clear what
> is meant by “clean” – is it intended to say that it is not in fact used?
> 
> ** Section 3.1. Per “[TCP Option]; Options#Size == (DOffset-5)*32;”, I found
> this notation confusing. What does the “#” in “Options#Size” indicate?

The header format description uses the approach described in draft-mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams-08 to try to be both human and machine readable. 

It seems this particular syntax fails at the human readable part :-)

It’s also not clear it’s well specified in draft-mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams.

Maybe Options.size() or size(Options) would be clearer?

Colin