Joseph, Brian has failed to answer my reply about what I consider to be a non-issue:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/gAHzUNlTqKcefn5BSKXnbyj7Unw/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/gAHzUNlTqKcefn5BSKXnbyj7Unw/> Please more clearly articulate why you think dynamic packet sizing is problematic. Brian's consideration seemed to be a worry about where in the OSI stack the sizing was going to be. -- Jeff > On Dec 27, 2024, at 2:35 PM, Joseph Salowey via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: Joseph Salowey > Review result: Has Nits > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the > IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the > security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat > these comments just like any other last call comments. > > The summary of the review is the document has minor issue. > > Please see Brian Trammell's review. I think he makes a good point about the > packet sizes changing to be dynamic. I think the authors should consider > adding > a sentence about the change to dynamic packet size. >
