Thanks Paul.
Regards, B.
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by
the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For
more information, please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
[Note: I received no response to my LC comments. Reviewing the message
I sent, I wonder if it perhaps was not delivered. The following
comments are a duplicate of what I sent as LC comments.]
Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues,
described in the review.
Major Issues: NONE
Minor Issues:
It would be helpful if this draft described its intended target
audience. It would also benefit from having additional references
providing background context for the substance of the draft.
In particular, "ECMP" and "PMTUD" are used extensively, in the text
and even the title of the draft. While these acronyms are expanded in
the text, there are no references to definitions of them.
I sought out references for ECMP. The ones I found are RFC2991 and
RFC2992, which are old. Is there a more recent analysis that ought to
be considered? It seems that the problem at hand comes when using ECMP
for load balancing across multiple servers. Is there some reference
that talks about that? (RFCs 2991 and 2992 are more general - they
could apply in other contexts and don't mention this use.)
The single reference in the document is to RFC4821. Is it the proper
reference for PMTUD? It seems to be closely related, but it seems to
be more specialized.
In the Security Considerations section a possible attack is
identified, and a mitigation described. But then a seemingly serious
drawback to the mitigation is also described. I think this bears more
discussion.
Thanks,
Paul
.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
