Telechat Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-15
review-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-15-iotdir-telechat-birkholz-2025-02-25-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Internet of Things Directorate (iotdir) | |
Deadline | 2025-02-14 | |
Requested | 2025-02-04 | |
Requested by | Éric Vyncke | |
Authors | Gorry Fairhurst , Tom Jones | |
I-D last updated | 2025-03-25 (Latest revision 2025-02-20) | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -13
by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -13 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -13 by Brian Haberman (diff) Iotdir Telechat review of -15 by Henk Birkholz |
|
Comments |
Even if the I-D is currently under IETF Last Call, the telechat eval is really the week after. I.e., I will appreciate the INT & IoT directorates reviews for my IESG evaluation. Thank you. |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Henk Birkholz |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud by Internet of Things Directorate Requested | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/SONQT1rjvLJk1K05Lv2kt6ev6og | |
Reviewed revision | 15 | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2025-02-25 |
review-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-15-iotdir-telechat-birkholz-2025-02-25-00
I am the assigned IoT Directorate reviewer for I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-15 as part of the IoT Directorate's effort to provide feedback to IoT-related IETF documents before being processed by the IESG. Document authors, document editors, WG chairs, and area directors should treat these comments just like any other WG comments. Summary: This documents specifies how UDP fragmentation can be avoided or better steered in the Internet, automatically, using a probing mechanism that is enabled, by an upper layer protocol or by a UDP transport service. The activity to avoid UDP fragmentation is called Datagram Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD). The base concept of DPLPMTUD is specified in RFC 8899 and combined with the "soft control plane" transport options for UDP illustrated in I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options, thereby concertizing how UDP fragmentation avoidance works on a "packatization-layer" (PL, see RFC 4821). In general, the documents applies UDP guidelines from RFC 8085. The document highlights when to use probe packets with or without application data and the potential benefits of reducing the need to send additional UDP datagrams during DPLPMTUD. The documentation is clear and useful for design considerations in constrained node environments. The examples in Section 6 are especially helpful to steer corresponding design decisions. I've not checked the change log. Nits: * The Figure is not labeled and referenced in the text (but there's also just one Figure). * This has already been highlighted, but sometimes phrasing almost implies normative language, which might make document a tad bit challenging for implementers to act on; two examples: * the use of "ought to" * phrasing, such as "padded to the required probe size" * The four-byte (maybe avoid the term octet nowadays) token seems to act as a nonce, but current phrasing (including SecConSec) is already pretty clear how that works without an explicit reference to nonces.