Re: [tsvwg] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19: (with COMMENT)

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi Erik,

A lot of the comments you have below are soley related to that you have reviewed
using the HTMLized version on the tools site. If you instead look at the HTML
version generated from the v3 source XML file you will find that these do not
exist:

Direct pointer for example to the section with the references to a section in
RFC8201. 
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19.html#name-timers

So the HTMLized version offen contains this type of errors. Especially the
section reference within another doc is an unsolvable issue. The
[RFCXXXX][RFCYYYY] should be possible to fix, send a bug report to tools site. 

Cheers

Magnus

On Sat, 2020-04-04 at 16:00 -0700, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote:
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19: Yes
> 
> 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> {Yes}
> 
> [nits]
> 
> S1.1
> 
> * It's not clear to me that "stateful" in the phrase "stateful firewall"
>   matters here. I imagine a "stateless" firewall could just as easily block
>   incoming ICMP messages.
> 
> S4.5
> 
> * The "[RFC8201]" didn't render as a clickable link. Source XML weirdness?
>   Same in S4.6.1.
> 
> S5.
> 
> * First sentence of second paragraph seems like two sentences, one sentence
>   with a parenthetical comment, or a run-on sentence.  Also, I think "only be
>   performed once" here means "only performed at one layer" rather than "only
>   performed at one point in time"?
> 
> S5.1.1
> 
> * The "section 3.1.1" link seems to be internal to the draft rather than
> linked
>   into RFC 8085, as I would expect from the text. (this happens twice in this
>   section)
> 
> S5.3.3
> 
> * Is there any additional detail worth including here?  It asserts that a PL
>   sender is able to detect inconsistencies, but I wonder whether more guidance
>   (or an example) might be helpful to implementors.
> 
> S6.2.2
> 
> * s/is to be added//
> 
> S6.2.3.4
> 
> * Maybe check the XML for the "[RFC4960]" reference, since it doesn't seem to
>   have been converted into a link.
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------