[tsvwg] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. I am copying Rob Wilton's text
as it also applies to my review:
       "Given my lack of familiarity with STCP, I have only quickly reviewed
        the diffs before this document and the base RFC, and do not have any
        significant comments that will improve this document."

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Gorry Fairhurst for the shepherd's write-up including the
section about the WG consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 10 --
I wonder what is the purpose of this section dedicated to ICMP handling, e.g.,
ICMP1-5 are pretty obvious. It is of course not harmful to keep this section
but perhaps limit it to the important ones like ICMP6 and the rest ?

ICMP7: please s/v4/IPv4/ and s/v6/IPv6/ (also applicable in other parts). I
would also prefer s/an implementation MAY process/an implementation SHOULD
process/

-- Section 12.2.4.1. --
Suggest to use "ESP" wording as in 12.2.3

About "IP Authentication Header", I am unsure whether it is still commonly used
and adding a reference to RFC 4302 is probably required.

-- Section 7.2.1 --
Just curious about why the "cwd" is computed differently for IPv4 and IPv6 (I
do not understand the 60 bytes difference)