Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning domains

Martin Duke <> Wed, 18 December 2019 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CD9120090; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:53:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hLLlhqgtlgxZ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:53:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 612E1120074; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:53:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d16so405681wre.10; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:53:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QzzkyPOj/Gp707LiCfVkFzysDsvnQVRKAaKk84HvwAg=; b=FbOCas45TrtQSdBhZu3KNqq+Dl8x7HQKbU+RNon7yXt+ncP97BdMAti2JaW2vlg1yM pvhgWVV81q/NUGZded3/K/lfku9a+LJrKqmIjLSq2QXkXkOxT88QL7UhX4HbNJRxgvbQ v+TLWHUFK33ItsO7PQ2Hx3n2qLrSKoVL6urecfYCQ8SiWwOGoxCbEFIxP3hQIkXoRBlT wFaaWy5/5atg5sX0pzns6PDXljnRqK+Bk47Tb7YhU0/94UWQmU7C1ErJdRAh/Xi0nCiO l+LhE8ldb58Q9WEFWZ/+82NMHAS4gXrrq2TUwmhEtHcffNxejQvLas6dsXk2GkxtCcc5 /0iA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QzzkyPOj/Gp707LiCfVkFzysDsvnQVRKAaKk84HvwAg=; b=bCnTkJPmv7LI+msVeVyXxeqi8MECOHryi+xhQMnJMo4oFhRd0CVkQ2OAxIsAbSuQnL gbVE2vHMkEt+0u5A+XZ0nd/zZTQ8JviDxprb77ySiKydGXveLM2eSNO9fMrK7RjzMRhb KQz+1DQ9bYoGW04AJOIewhZZMq9+hx6cArMiCYj7enAqxmWhSGfZjzSxFbIVMkQPgrZE My4NObD6uZjggmzQ2WH9Bnr+S5xTqfR9ngWEuGz4DCXWs5Yj4IZjh3p/ZwqWwqg4OyOy 7w19URTT4lBztUBBXehcbS4xh7J8ixzNiFromKPDLZz/iLApYHl19LtjLomFR3Vu3S0C uyeg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVPuS3o2nqkEArgwAuu0vWz4y0UJfEN9nrOpAE7Ek2j1Rw7/S5M XNfXTC0V86TAWxufG3cF35SxS7s7Te+CF0Lj/skYOq4X
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzH/OzL8jlg0rKW/4OC6ZZiRqAfGkRg7/vcYNyLDVRnvKCywgzChPl+0vMqcbLMCzgiNQhHReewfdLIm4UYi04=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4807:: with SMTP id l7mr686666wrq.64.1576630431660; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:53:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Martin Duke <>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:53:40 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d240c10599efe045"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning domains
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:53:56 -0000

sending it to the area this time..

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:52 PM Martin Duke <> wrote:

> Reviewer: Martin Duke
> Review result: Ready
> 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
> if you reply to or forward this review.
> This document is ready, and well-written. The examples were especially
> helpful in following how things fit together. There aren't any specific
> transport layer considerations that must be addressed to move forward;
> however, this mechanism is partly intended to support multihomed
> transports, and it is not difficult to imagine extensions that would help
> those transports by providing additional information about each path. I
> hope these eventually follow in another document.
> Nits:
> - Second sentence of Sec 3: delete either "which" or "that"
> - Sec 3.1 RA Message Header description: clarify that non-zero checksums
> "MUST be ignored by the receiver and the rest of the option processed", if
> that is in fact accurate.
> - Sec 3.1 it might be helpful to spell out RDNSS the first time the
> acronym appears.
> - Sec 5.2. Can you add a sentence on why sending two RA messages is
> Martin