[TLS] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-11: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-11: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. This specification addresses the
IPv4-mainly issue of NAT binding and is still required. I am also trusted the
security ADs for section 5.

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 --
As an important part of this document is the padding, should it be mentioned
also in the abstract ?

-- Section 3 --
While I am not a DTLS expert, I find this section quite difficult to understand
the reasoning behind the specification as little explanations are given about,
e.g, what is the motivation of "A zero-length value indicates that the server
will send with the client's CID but does not wish the client to include a CID."

-- Section 6 --
I am puzzled by the text:
     "There is a strategy for ensuring that the new peer address is able
      to receive and process DTLS records.  No such strategy is defined
      in this specification."
Does this mean that there is no way to update the peer IP address ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 1 --
Please expand CID on first use outside of the abstract.

-- Section 4 --
Suggest to add a short paragraph as a preamble to figure 3. Currently, it looks
like figure 3 belongs to the 'zeros' field description.