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

["Scharf, Michael" <[e-mail]>]

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.

>      - 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.

> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

> - 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.

Thanks

Michael