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

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Tue, 09 July 2019 10:33 UTC

Return-Path: <philip.eardley@bt.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 8412712041D; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 03:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bt.com
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 CB8ccFrn_2jh; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 03:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpe1.intersmtp.com (smtpe1.intersmtp.com [213.121.35.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E68B120404; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 03:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tpw09926dag08f.domain1.systemhost.net (10.9.202.39) by BWP09926083.bt.com (10.36.82.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:33:29 +0100
Received: from tpw09926dag10f.domain1.systemhost.net (10.9.202.41) by tpw09926dag08f.domain1.systemhost.net (10.9.202.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:33:00 +0100
Received: from bwp09926078.bt.com (10.36.82.109) by tpw09926dag10f.domain1.systemhost.net (10.9.202.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:33:00 +0100
Received: from GBR01-CWL-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.20.56) by smtpe1.intersmtp.com (10.36.82.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:32:25 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bt.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=c0P5FDR4hnYXYUWg/fqsgBQKXgKOUBopqIBJpDj/kvU=; b=DYlUm9YUm2NUjeo3OiiCeKWFJbmVhb4BUDSnX1xyUbcbHOfemTpeP9ngibiIarIcKYa2ENfTk4/6y7n3Q4zile0aN6jWeEQ0zfv/8fWz6SCyXX/fLOpxqlkhdsgAfbLILaKm27Kv9BoVERwtwElUZETZtOfzo9pO4Ot6eUf2pxs=
Received: from LNXP123MB2587.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (20.179.128.78) by LNXP123MB1946.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (20.179.128.76) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2052.18; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:32:58 +0000
Received: from LNXP123MB2587.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::10d8:71fc:f4d3:8074]) by LNXP123MB2587.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::10d8:71fc:f4d3:8074%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2052.020; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:32:58 +0000
From: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
To: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, <tcpm@ietf.org>
CC: <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-converters-08
Thread-Index: AdUrckm1sQAV9Sf8TqW1iT6fsU2DwgBZdsDwAMW68XAAMI3dUAFkFuUA
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:32:58 +0000
Message-ID: <LNXP123MB2587027C096DC84652613AE9EBF10@LNXP123MB2587.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D35AB8E@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <LNXP123MB258781EFAC897351EDB153E2EBFD0@LNXP123MB2587.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <LNXP123MB2587CCAD2E17277EAFD6E078EBF90@LNXP123MB2587.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EAB0E38@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EAB0E38@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=philip.eardley@bt.com;
x-originating-ip: [193.113.37.9]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e87ba3c2-85c9-4eac-e07e-08d70458cfde
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:LNXP123MB1946;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: LNXP123MB1946:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <LNXP123MB19460B9EAFE89C45F0FA7893EBF10@LNXP123MB1946.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
x-antispam-2: 1
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0093C80C01
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(136003)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(8936002)(476003)(81156014)(81166006)(6506007)(110136005)(6436002)(53546011)(25786009)(71200400001)(316002)(966005)(71190400001)(33656002)(102836004)(305945005)(478600001)(74316002)(3846002)(4326008)(6246003)(2906002)(6116002)(53936002)(68736007)(8676002)(229853002)(86362001)(7696005)(2501003)(2201001)(5660300002)(14454004)(486006)(256004)(14444005)(52536014)(76176011)(66446008)(99286004)(66556008)(55016002)(66476007)(9686003)(66946007)(64756008)(186003)(73956011)(76116006)(66066001)(11346002)(7736002)(26005)(446003)(6306002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:LNXP123MB1946; H:LNXP123MB2587.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: bt.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 61hYsy1Mn6u7szk7xuNACPwvsn3KbAi4T9KceUfInqYntolBw/EG0xhuOWacIjt07tTsbsQx2eNSGbopT/pxd185uo9w5qF8MNCXJvvqfpkAoPEv3CbcPegJNDpubC4z6PYSIBIh3e6hbrFcgEKCBbACeMCdU0TG6BUF/shw/EJjRr+LeJyvy+UF7IPblvmoB/D91C4BvmdMQZmFToPeMMnSmG2WX9KwDHMbBhYtHYjtmHI/wKmsr5487tAUqpqLCK0meYo7a3k5qeUYZtZE4mCTk56IOiqNoa+rZr1MsYo34qcMG21TT4GP4vwvtp6Oihmy2D1khzVSBNu/Ow7KHo3MTMHatz3YV6us38w1j3MU7Qy18pz8X4Kw5QBUKSldkD1OPHn2nucBblA+GtMfHEpu1XTv/bYuT4Y9WKoxQ9s=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e87ba3c2-85c9-4eac-e07e-08d70458cfde
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Jul 2019 10:32:58.5298 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: a7f35688-9c00-4d5e-ba41-29f146377ab0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: philip.eardley@bt.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: LNXP123MB1946
X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO
X-NAI-Spam-Level:
X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5
X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0.2
X-NAI-Spam-Report: 5 Rules triggered * 0.1 -- GEN_SPAM_FEATRE * 0.1 -- THREAD_INDX_INVALD_VAL * 0 -- EDT_SDHA_ADR_FRG * 0 -- EDT_SDHA_DMN_FRG * 0 -- RV6585
X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9309 : core <6585> : inlines <7115> : streams <1826841> : uri <2865516>
X-OriginatorOrg: bt.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/bg4dOS2p9MARBvChCxCBUhhb4dY>
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, 09 Jul 2019 10:33:08 -0000

Med - thanks - no follow-ups
phil


-----Original Message-----
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] 
Sent: 02 July 2019 10:05
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R <philip.eardley@bt.com>om>; Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de; tcpm@ietf.org
Cc: tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-converters-08

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