Subject: [tsvwg] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:26:11 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-17: No Objection

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kudos on a very approachable document.  The thin air up in the ART layers had
me fearing something that said "TSVWG" on it.

Section 2:
* The definition for EMTU_R appears to double up on itself.

Section 3:
* In bullet 2, "On request, a DPLPMTUD sender is REQUIRED to be able to
transmit a packet  ..." -- I read this as "If I ask you to do X, you MUST be
able to do X", versus "you MUST do X".  Was that the intent? * In bullet 3,
there's reference to a "feedback method" that is REQUIRED, but this method is
unspecified.  Is that defined elsewhere, or is out of scope here?

Section 4.1:
Nits:
* "... uses a probe packet carrying an application data ..." -- s/an//
* "... this probe packet, could perform ..." -- s/,//
* "This retransmited data block ..." --  typo: "retransmitted"

Section 4.3:
* PROBE_COUNT and MAX_PROBES are first used here, though they are not defined
until later in the document in the DPLPMTUD section. Nit: * "... data is sent
again, MAY choose ..." -- s/,//

Section 4.4:
Nit:
* "... over clearing the DF-bit in the IPv4 header ..." -- s/-/ /

Section 4.6.1:
* "For example, by checking the value ..." -- Suggest: "For example, it could
check the value..." Nit: * "... from a router or middlebox, performs ..." --
s/,//

Section 5:
Nit:
* "... in a lower layer, DPLPMTUD SHOULD only ..." -- s/,/./

Section 5.1.1:
Nit:
* "... use an up-to-data PMTU once ..." -- I think you mean "up-to-date"

Section 5.1.2:
Nit:
* "... from a MAX_PROBES valugreater than 1 because ..." -- s/valugreater/value
greater/

Section 5.3.3:
Nit:
* "... inconsistent, when, for example, ..." -- remove the first comma

Section 6.1.1:
Nit:
* "... from off-path insertion of data [RFC8085], suitable methods include ..."
-- s/, s/. S/

Section 6.3.2:
Nit:
* "... packets of the required size, this sets the ..." -- either s/, t/. T/,
or s/this/which/

Section 9:
"Parallel forwarding paths SHOULD be considered."  What is the specific action
being recommended here? Nits: * "This protection if provided ..." -- s/if/is/ *
"... design (see Section 1.1), this method therefore ..."  -- I think "this"
should begin a new sentence. * "An on-path attacker, able to create ..." --
remove comma * "This could occur when there are multiple paths are concurrently
in use." -- s/there are//