[tram] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-27: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 10 July 2019 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tram@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD93D12015F; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tram-turnbis@ietf.org, Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com>, tram-chairs@ietf.org, brandon.williams@akamai.com, tram@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
Message-ID: <156276743162.15103.11217512835677641225.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:03:51 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/7h4xhPRjHWefANrN5fmSYF9zDp0>
Subject: [tram] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-27: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:03:57 -0000

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-27: 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:


* Section 3.7

I think an informative reference to [draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile] would be
very useful here. It is a BCP that covers this issue in great detail and has
specific recommendations for different audiences.

* Section 13.2 Page 53

"If the packet is being sent to the peer"

The term "the packet" is ambiguous here. This could potentially refer to the
ICMPv6 packet being sent or the original packet that caused the error. Can you
please clarify which one you mean here?

* References

I do have a better citation for the Fragmentation Considered Harmful paper if
you want to use it.

   [Kent]     Kent, C. and J. Mogul, ""Fragmentation Considered
              Harmful", In Proc. SIGCOMM '87 Workshop on Frontiers in
              Computer Communications Technology, DOI
              10.1145/55483.55524", August 1987,