Early Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-30
review-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-30-intdir-early-touch-2024-08-30-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-30 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | 30 (document currently at 30) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-09-02 | |
Requested | 2024-08-19 | |
Requested by | Michael Tüxen | |
Authors | Bob Briscoe , Mirja Kühlewind , Richard Scheffenegger | |
I-D last updated | 2024-08-30 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Early review of -14
by Scott G. Kelly
(diff)
Intdir Early review of -30 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch Secdir Early review of -30 by Scott G. Kelly |
|
Comments |
This document is now almost ready. It is now under review of the responsible AD. It would be great if the reviewers have some familiarity with TCP. For the sec review, this was suggested by the earlier sec reviewer. For the int review, looking at middlebox interactions would be much appreciated. |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dr. Joseph D. Touch |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn by Internet Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/V_haR3271qzmh-v_mrxp2hmqa2E | |
Reviewed revision | 30 | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2024-08-30 |
review-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-30-intdir-early-touch-2024-08-30-00
From an INTAREA perspective, this document has no concerns. However, viewed from a transport perspective, the document has one key concern - the use of two TCP code points. Information expressed in TCP options should occur inside the option payload, not be encoded indirectly in code points. The variants desired in Table 5 can easily be differentiated using a single bit of the first counter indicated. There's no good reason to consume two TCP code points for this optimization. Additionally and somewhat less significantly, it is nonsensical to assign non-adjacent code points, again as this unnecessarily breaks up the TCP code point space for use by other future assignments (e.g., were there to be a legitimate need for a range of code points). Frankly, see no good reason why this mechanism should not use code points in order of availability, e.g., 80 (and, with GREAT hesitation, 81 if warranted).