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

Hi Suresh,

Thanks for the review. Please see inline 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tram <tram-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 7:34 PM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: tram-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-tram-turnbis@ietf.org; tram@ietf.org;
> brandon.williams@akamai.com
> Subject: [tram] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-27:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> 
> 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> * 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.

Sure, updated.

> 
> * 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?

Fixed text for clarity as follows:
If the ICMPv4 packet (Destination Unreachable (Type 3) with Code 4) is being sent to the peer, the TURN server SHOULD reduce the MTU reported in the ICMP message by 48 bytes to allow room for the overhead of a Data indication. 

> 
> * 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,
>               <http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/
>               WRL-87-3.pdf>.

Thanks, Updated.

Cheers,
-Tiru

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram