IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-listen-12
review-ietf-masque-connect-udp-listen-12-artart-lc-singh-2026-06-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-listen
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2026-06-23
Requested 2026-06-09
Authors David Schinazi , Abhijit Singh
I-D last updated 2026-10-12 (Latest revision 2026-08-24)
Completed reviews Httpdir Early review of -10 by Mark Nottingham (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -12 by Aihua Guo (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -12 by Yaroslav Rosomakho (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -12 by Ines Robles (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -12 by Jasdip Singh (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -13 by Yaroslav Rosomakho (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jasdip Singh
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-masque-connect-udp-listen by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/05f-VdMqtEGgmZYGyaT9F0441WQ
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2026-06-29
review-ietf-masque-connect-udp-listen-12-artart-lc-singh-2026-06-29-00
This draft is well-written. One minor observation:

In the Appendix A example, UDP ports 1234 and 4321 are used. Since these ports
are registered in the IANA Ports registry [1], would it be better to use ports
more suited for documentation purposes? That said, it is not clear from BCP 165
(RFC 6335) what they would be. Perhaps from the dynamic ports range
(49152-65535)?

[1]
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.txt