Telechat Review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10
review-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10-genart-telechat-shirazipour-2017-11-30-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 19) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2017-11-28 | |
| Requested | 2017-10-25 | |
| Authors | Andrea Bittau, Daniel B. Giffin , Mark J. Handley , David Mazieres , Eric W. Smith | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-11-30 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Telechat review of -12
by Papadimitriou Dimitri
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Watson Ladd (diff) Genart Last Call review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -12 by Watson Ladd (diff) Genart Telechat review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Watson Ladd (diff) Genart Telechat review of -16 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Meral Shirazipour |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 19) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2017-11-30 |
review-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10-genart-telechat-shirazipour-2017-11-30-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2017-10-16 IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-19 IESG Telechat date: 2017-10-26 Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Experimental RFC but I have some comments. Major issues: Minor issues: The discussions around misbehaving middleboxes was good but more examples would have been better: Would it make sense to add some examples of well-behaved TCP-proxy middleboxes (TCP terminating proxies)? What is allowed for example? E.g. can the TEP on each side of the proxy be different? Security section could also be enhanced in that regard. Nits/editorial comments: [Page 7] , "TEP identifer"---->"TEP identifier" [Page 16] , "Futhermore,"-----"Furthermore," [Page 19], "unlikely to to"---->"unlikely to" General, some acronyms not spelled at first use Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com