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

[Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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.