IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-10: (with COMMENT)

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 12 April 2021 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 675CD3A2826; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.069
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HAS_X_OUTGOING_SPAM_STAT=2.388, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 LKaHFaI8XfCm; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A071B3A2822; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=6JmgEm6oX1kTTl/F84mYB7KCcQkuXxgAHhhJtUf+TiU=; b=RJuaCyhfUWPI4SbeHpAC8/8Ta vc+6pMLJ/gIg94KrdGWbC+6EIo4le1YZikry133MIhyea5FdltRLsEbhekPcbpLzCyOLYMuYJ/g3R hkCmhjCPGWKQnWn2h8sNnRm4acNOUV0pH0/BMw45JH3LqJ432I/41EJunfHZWaz6oGjw/QMRHu0/O WWRynQjSYPscjud3airStYq/cbOkKKOQMhJ6y9RMAnxJFQmfvVHuavABGYitOqEcEi51hYwWrV4Rk OgjMjZjmtC6XLEYi20+53NWnlD5Dx6rmXn2rgXbOhLAmEHbq8u6prUoOCbbtETsVoc0JSACD13GrE +P4oI2DWg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:57238 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1lVll8-003PbA-TG; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:53:07 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <161667506763.22315.6198477654822795827@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:52:59 -0700
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C564C5A4-4A3A-4E89-A260-C4E5D49DBB3C@strayalpha.com>
References: <161667506763.22315.6198477654822795827@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/j0mWYfKRbBhQX8YT8ZSqltIB-Z4>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-10: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 01:53:14 -0000

Hi, Éric,

Thank you for the feedback. 

An update will be posted shortly. Some notes below.

Joe

> On Mar 25, 2021, at 5:24 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-10: 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-tcpm-2140bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
> 
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
> appreciated), and some nits.
> 
> I hope that this helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> == COMMENTS ==
> 
> -- Abstract --
> Nothing critical, but, the abstract is mostly cut & paste of the introduction.
> Could it be made more concise ?

Done.

> -- Section 1 --
> "as often used in the World-Wide Web", references are really outdated and we
> may expect/hope that H3/QUIC will represent soon the majority of the
> connections.

This is clarified as applying to some versions of HTTP (more than a few still use TCP, including automated scripts) and other applications.

> "TCP segments having the same host-pair experience the same path properties"
> does this assumption stand in an ECMP world ? A reference to section 8.1 would
> be useful.

Done.

> -- Section 8.1 --
> "e.g., the connections could be given the same IPv6 flow label" suggest to add
> a reference to RFC 6437

Done.

> == NITS ==
> 
> -- Section 2 --
> I am always puzzled by the use of BCP 14 boilerplate for an informational
> document, but, no need to change/reply.

The rationale is directly addressed in Sec 2.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email