Telechat Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19
review-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19-secdir-telechat-farrell-2020-04-04-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 22) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2020-04-07 | |
| Requested | 2020-03-27 | |
| Authors | Gorry Fairhurst , Tom Jones , Michael Tüxen , Irene Ruengeler , Timo Völker | |
| I-D last updated | 2020-04-04 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -15
by Stephen Farrell
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Francis Dupont (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Tim Chown (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -19 by Stephen Farrell (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Stephen Farrell |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/o9ZSTobdGo3ia5rLJASiF8JjtwE | |
| Reviewed revision | 19 (document currently at 22) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2020-04-04 |
review-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19-secdir-telechat-farrell-2020-04-04-00
Thanks for addressing my earlier secdir comments on -15. I think the ones below remain but are, from my POV, nits: - Abstract: This draft aims for proposed standard but is updating a BCP (RFC8085/BCP145). I'm happy to leave the process-lawyering for that to others. - 6.3: I am surprised that the QUIC description here is ready to be an RFC before QUIC itself. I do see there are normative references, but the potential for a breaking change still exists, and seems a bit unwise. (I'd suggest, holding this in the WG 'till the referenced QUIC drafts are in the RFC editor queue, or else taking that bit out and putting it into a new I-D.)