Early Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13
review-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13-rtgdir-early-bonica-2016-06-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-06-06
Requested 2016-06-01
Draft last updated 2016-06-06
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -13 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -18 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Tim Chown (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -13 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ron Bonica
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13-rtgdir-early-bonica-2016-06-06
Reviewed rev. 13 (document currently at 19)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-06-06

Review
review-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13-rtgdir-early-bonica-2016-06-06

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ‚Äč

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir



Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: 
Reviewer: Ron Bonica
Review Date: 6/5/16
IETF LC End Date: 
Intended Status: BCP

Summary: 
Choose from this list...

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

Major Issues:

Minor Issues:

- General: If Section 4 is called "Multicast UDP Usage Guidelines", Section 3 should be called "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines"

- Section 3.1.3: What value is there for implementing congestion control on an application that exchanges only a few packets? Maybe this section exists because the value of "a few" may vary greatly?

- Section 3.1.11: It will come as a surprise to most tunnel developers that the ECN bits need to be copied. You might want to call this out explicitly (rather than through a reference).

- Section 3.2: You say, "Due to these issues, an application SHOULD NOT send UDP datagrams that result in IP packets that exceed the Maximum Transmission Unit  (MTU) along the path to the destination." While I agree with this goal, it may cause problems for DNSSEC.

- Section 3.4.1: This section is difficult to parse. I think I agree with what you are saying, but I am not sure that the words on the page are actually saying.

- Section 3.4.1: Please scan for grammatical errors.

- Section 4.1.2 : What value is there for implementing congestion control on an low volume multicast application ? Maybe this section exists because the value of "a few" may vary greatly?

Nits:

-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  896
     (Obsoleted by RFC 7805)

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2309
     (Obsoleted by RFC 7567)