[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-05

Michael Tüxen via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 21 March 2021 23:32 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 DAFAB3A0AA7; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 16:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_T=C3=BCxen_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Cc: dots@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <161636957782.14687.3973826310014534947@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?Michael_T=C3=BCxen?= <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 16:32:57 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/mNn2ylPFqZgMDHAbszWTJlD4LZw>
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-05
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: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 23:32:58 -0000

Reviewer: Michael Tüxen
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.

>From a transport perspective, there is one minor issue:
Section 7.3 provides a motivation for using a path MTU for IPv4 of 576 bytes.
The motivation refers to the requirement that a receiver is capable of
receiving IPv4 packets of that size, however they can be received fragmented.
While it is acceptable to use 576 bytes as the minimum PMTU, the motivation
does not hold.