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

[Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]>]

> 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 == Outdated reference: A later version (-25) exists of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. 

>  
> Cheers
>  
> Magnus Westerlund