Early Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13
review-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13-rtgdir-early-bonica-2016-06-06-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document:
Reviewer: Ron Bonica
Review Date: 6/5/16
IETF LC End Date:
Intended Status: BCP

Summary:
Choose from this list...

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
considered prior to publication.

Comments:

Major Issues:

Minor Issues:

- General: If Section 4 is called "Multicast UDP Usage Guidelines", Section 3
should be called "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines"

- Section 3.1.3: What value is there for implementing congestion control on an
application that exchanges only a few packets? Maybe this section exists
because the value of "a few" may vary greatly?

- Section 3.1.11: It will come as a surprise to most tunnel developers that the
ECN bits need to be copied. You might want to call this out explicitly (rather
than through a reference).

- Section 3.2: You say, "Due to these issues, an application SHOULD NOT send
UDP datagrams that result in IP packets that exceed the Maximum Transmission
Unit  (MTU) along the path to the destination." While I agree with this goal,
it may cause problems for DNSSEC.

- Section 3.4.1: This section is difficult to parse. I think I agree with what
you are saying, but I am not sure that the words on the page are actually
saying.

- Section 3.4.1: Please scan for grammatical errors.

- Section 4.1.2 : What value is there for implementing congestion control on an
low volume multicast application ? Maybe this section exists because the value
of "a few" may vary greatly?

Nits:

-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  896
     (Obsoleted by RFC 7805)

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2309
     (Obsoleted by RFC 7567)