Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04
review-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04-tsvart-lc-trammell-2022-10-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2022-10-04
Requested 2022-09-20
Authors Don Fedyk , Eric Kinzie
I-D last updated 2022-10-03
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Brian Trammell (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Ivaylo Petrov (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -05 by Ralf Weber (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Trammell
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/02CWe6FJ-kUKGE1EjhKTGvbRygs
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-10-03
review-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04-tsvart-lc-trammell-2022-10-03-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

This document presents no transport-relevant issues not already considered
in its parent document (draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs); that document (and its ART
reviews) are more critical for the transport considerations of the deployment
of this protocol and its associated MIB.

This document, on its own, is ready for publication.

While a TSVART reviewer should always be skeptical of 
anything that looks like a switch to turn off congestion control
(1.3.6.1.3.500.1.1.1.2), the default (True) is appropriate, and the 
description points to guidance about how CC should be implemented.
The choice of RFC 5348 is conservative, but appropriate for this
application. 

Thanks, cheers,

Brian