[tsvwg] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-28: (with COMMENT)

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-28: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-ecn-l4s-id/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-07
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. Like well-written by Paul
Wouters in another review, I am not a TSV person...

I also appreciate the experimental status with a description of the experiment
itself.

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

Special thanks to Wesley Eddy for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Update RFC 3168

No need to comment, but it was very smart for the authors of RFC 8511 to allow
such experiments ;-)

There is some duplicate text in sections 1.3 and 2 on this though...

### Section 1

A lot of the content of this section appears to be identical or similar to the
architecture draft. Consider removing some text ?

### BCP 14

Please use the right template for BCP14 in section 1.2.

### Section 5.4.1.1 unresponsive

Is `unresponsive traffic` a well-defined term ?

### Section 5.4.1.1 ARP, DNS

In the example for low-level traffic, ARP, DNS, I am unsure whether ARP is
really routed through an IP network ;-) or are Ethernet switches also covered
by this I-D? You may also qualify 'DNS' into 'DNS queries'.

### Section 6.2

```
   ... If a mix of L4S and Classic packets is sent into the same security
   association (SA) of a virtual private network (VPN), and if the VPN
   egress is employing the optional anti-replay feature, ...
```

Suggest to used IPsec in tunnel mode as they are many kinds of VPNs.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments