Subject: [tsvwg] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 19:24:32 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your updates in response to the SECDIR review by Stephen Farrell
(and thanks for the review Stephen!)

** As previously mentioned, please consider the stability of the
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport] when advancing this document

** Section 1.  Per “ICMP messages can be filtered by middleboxes (including
firewalls) [RFC4890].  A stateful firewall could be configured …”, couldn’t all
firewalls (stateless and stateful) also do this?

** Editorial Nits:
Section 4.1.  Typo. s/retransmited/retransmitted/

Section 4.1. s/… which could need the PL to to use a smaller packet
size…/…which could force the PL to use a smaller packet size …/

Section 5.1.2.  Typo. s/valugreater/value greater/