Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs a YES.
Comment (2006-10-11 for -)
This is a very interesting and great spec.
But I still worry about the practical tradeoff
for early deployers implied by the experimental
Measurement studies of interactions between transport protocols and
middleboxes [MAF04] show that for 70% of the web servers
investigated, no connection is established if the TCP SYN packet
contains an unknown IP option ...
If the TCP sender doesn't receive a response to the SYN or SYN/ACK
packet containing the Quick-Start Request, then the TCP sender
SHOULD resend the SYN or SYN/ACK packet without the Quick-Start
And the cost evaluation in Section 9.2 does not take this
into account at all, as far as I can see.
Comment (2006-10-11 for -07)
If the tunnel ingress for the simple tunnel is at a router, the IP
TTL of the inner header is generally decremented during forwarding
before tunnel encapsulation takes place.
This is not true for L2TP tunnels, though I understand that the document is not
making any specific claim about L2TP at this time. For IPinIP and GRE tunnels,
the TTL is decremented on ingress and egress for each tunnel. For L2TP, it is
only decremented at an LNS, which is typically the egress of the tunnel.