Skip to main content

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.