[tsvwg] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19

Stephen Farrell via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 04 April 2020 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43413A0C25; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 14:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.124.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <158603467562.27263.2918619786629536861@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 14:11:15 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/d0b99FcvqLE8l5g9-J18-D1nV7E>
Subject: [tsvwg] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 21:11:16 -0000

Reviewer: Stephen Farrell
Review result: Has Nits

Thanks for addressing my earlier secdir comments on -15. I think
the ones below remain but are, from my POV, nits:

- Abstract: This draft aims for proposed standard but is
updating a BCP (RFC8085/BCP145).  I'm happy to leave the
process-lawyering for that to others.

- 6.3: I am surprised that the QUIC description here is ready
to be an RFC before QUIC itself. I do see there are
normative references, but the potential for a breaking change
still exists, and seems a bit unwise. (I'd suggest, holding
this in the WG 'till the referenced QUIC drafts are in the RFC
editor queue, or else taking that bit out and putting it into
a new I-D.)