[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-11

Joerg Ott via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 01 December 2020 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588F83A0114; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 14:10:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joerg Ott via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <160686064132.16683.9970897893331887294@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Joerg Ott <jo@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 14:10:41 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/aF3wfZqvvoWYrWCWeLwnGrK_eMI>
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-11
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 22:10:41 -0000

Reviewer: Joerg Ott
Review result: Ready with Nits

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

The draft reads well and is essentially ready to go from a transport perspective.

One question that arises is why these three quite distinct mechanisms fixing
different parts of the RFC 7252 are compiled into a single document. Efficiency,
yes, but otherwise, they don't seem to have much in common.

p9, 2nd para, line 5: may -> MAY ?

A question out of curiosity: in section 3.4, could a client easily exhaust server
resources if just sent many blocks and changed the Request-Tag on each of them?

Should sections 3.6 and 3.7 move to an appendix? They discuss design alternatives.

Nits: "can not" -> "cannot"
The last sentence in the second to last paragraph of section 1.1 has nested brackets,
which may or may not be intentional.