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

Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Mon, 17 February 2020 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAB4120849; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 06:13:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qXHTWXND93sU; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 06:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B0B4120846; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 06:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb.fritz.box (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:dd92:51d1:1936:e305]) (Authenticated sender: lurchi) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 359EE721E281C; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:13:13 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR07MB457216F12169947827F7EAC495160@DB7PR07MB4572.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:13:12 +0100
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <96077A9C-DBB1-4490-B84D-BB88CE46032F@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <DB7PR07MB457216F12169947827F7EAC495160@DB7PR07MB4572.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Gm58wsjRS7OeGnDED6KGGGbwIO0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-14
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:13:21 -0000

> On 17. Feb 2020, at 14:44, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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