Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-14

[Tom Jones <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 01:40:27PM +0000, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Lets give others a few days to react to this. If no one has protested by next
> week, please submit an updated draft that includes the updates and the necessary
> description in abstract and introduction of these updates. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus

Hi Magnus,

We have posted a new rev that adds the updates lines and fixes the
reference to the quic draft (-27!)

- Tom

> On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 15:13 +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> > > On 17. Feb 2020, at 14:44, Magnus Westerlund <
> > > magnus.westerlund=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > >  
> > > I have done my AD review by going through the AD Review checklist and
> > > looking at the changes since my WG LC review. Issues that I have found this
> > > time are the following.
> > >  
> > > 1. Missing Updates: So this documents respecifies how one perform PLPMTUD
> > > for SCTP over different lower layers. Despite that only RFC 4960 is updated.
> > > Looking at Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 I think there is a point of actually
> > > updating also RFC 6951 and RFC 8261. Both have their own specifications for
> > > Path MTU D and do not rely solely on either 4960 or RFC 4821. Thus, I think
> > > it would be good to update also these documents. Or what is the authors and
> > > WG’s view on this? 
> > 
> > I agree, it makes sense to update 6951 and 8261, too. A change in the SCTP
> > will also affect SCTP/UDP and SCTP/DTLS.
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Michael
> > >  
> > > 2. Can you please update the revision of the QUIC transport reference:
> > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-25) exists of
> > >      draft-ietf-quic-transport-20
> > >  
> > > Otherwise I believe this document ready for IETF last call. I put the
> > > datatracker into revised ID needed based on 1.