Subject: [tsvwg] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 16:00:57 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19: Yes

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

{Yes}

[nits]

S1.1

* It's not clear to me that "stateful" in the phrase "stateful firewall"
  matters here. I imagine a "stateless" firewall could just as easily block
  incoming ICMP messages.

S4.5

* The "[RFC8201]" didn't render as a clickable link. Source XML weirdness?
  Same in S4.6.1.

S5.

* First sentence of second paragraph seems like two sentences, one sentence
  with a parenthetical comment, or a run-on sentence.  Also, I think "only be
  performed once" here means "only performed at one layer" rather than "only
  performed at one point in time"?

S5.1.1

* The "section 3.1.1" link seems to be internal to the draft rather than linked
  into RFC 8085, as I would expect from the text. (this happens twice in this
  section)

S5.3.3

* Is there any additional detail worth including here?  It asserts that a PL
  sender is able to detect inconsistencies, but I wonder whether more guidance
  (or an example) might be helpful to implementors.

S6.2.2

* s/is to be added//

S6.2.3.4

* Maybe check the XML for the "[RFC4960]" reference, since it doesn't seem to
  have been converted into a link.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 09:16:01 +0000

Hi Erik,

A lot of the comments you have below are soley related to that you have reviewed
using the HTMLized version on the tools site. If you instead look at the HTML
version generated from the v3 source XML file you will find that these do not
exist:

Direct pointer for example to the section with the references to a section in
RFC8201. 
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19.html#name-timers

So the HTMLized version offen contains this type of errors. Especially the
section reference within another doc is an unsolvable issue. The
[RFCXXXX][RFCYYYY] should be possible to fix, send a bug report to tools site. 

Cheers

Magnus

-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------