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