[tsvwg] Re: Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-41: (with COMMENT)

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Erik,

Thank you for your review. All edits have been included in -42, just issued.

Regarding the JUNK option, it is just there for testing and contains fill that is arbitrary and otherwise unused. The fill isn’t intended to be passed to the user; the purpose is just to make the options longer for testing. Nothing bad would happen if it were used operationally. 

Joe

> On Mar 2, 2025, at 12:03 AM, Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-41: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-39
> CC @ekline
> 
> * comment syntax:
>  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> 
> * "Handling Ballot Positions":
>  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> 
> ## Comments
> 
> ### Appendix A
> 
> * Out of curiosity, what happens (or is supposed to happen) if UDP_JUNK is
>  enabled?
> 
> ## Nits
> 
> ### S6
> 
> * "A mechanism that requires bidirectionally" ->
>  "A mechanism that requires bidirectionality"?
> 
> ### S10
> 
> * "trying to defining meaning" ->
>  "trying to define meaning"
> 
> ### S11.3
> 
> * "embedded ports numbers" ->
>  "embedded port numbers"
> 
> ### S11.4
> 
> * "no larger no larger" ->
>  "no larger"
> 
> ### S11.7
> 
> * "in which case and REQ/RES" ->
>  "in which case REQ/RES"
> 
> 
>