Subject: AD review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:46:26 -0400

Hi,

The document looks good. I found it an informative read.

I will post the following as IETF Last Call comments.

1) IANA Considerations should be a separate section (it appears to be
an editing mistake when marking it as a section). Appendix D and E
have the same problem. Maybe this is only in the HTML version.

2) in 4.4, if an egress "continues operating", are there specific
security or operational issues involved?

3) section 5.3.1 might benefit from an explanation of why, for each of
the bullets.

4) which proposal on stds-trk is broken by resetting? please provide a
reference.

5) in 7, "would be expected to" => SHOULD?

6) in 8, covert channel discussion: 
s/Not-ECN in the outer./Not-ECN in the outer header./
(mutliple places where outer should be outer header.)

7) I recomend [Note_Manual_Keying] be retained in Security
Considerations, and the "not required" be escalated to "NOT REQUIRED".

What would happen if a 4301 implementation DID implement compatibility
mode to address this corner case? would everything still work OK?

8) document submitted to iesg should contain no open issues. what you
actually describe is a potential future feature. I recommend appendix
G be dropped.

spelling:
s/complaint/compliant/
s/RC2481/RFC2481/