Hi Eric,
The text you mention is the final para of section 3 of RFC 7413. I
suspect the most appropriate correction would be to identify the section
number in the text, as done for other cited RFCs, e.g. Section 3 of
RFC7413 states that a TCP implementations MUST NOT use TFO by default,
but only use TFO if requested explicitly by the application on a
per-service-port basis.
Gorry
On 11/09/2017, 15:13, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: No Record
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-taps-transports-usage/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not yet completed my review of this document, but I note that it is
targeted for Informative but also contains RFC2119 normative language, e.g.,
"TCP implementations MUST NOT use
TFO by default, but only use TFO if requested explicitly by the
application on a per-service-port basis."
If the intent is that this is to be Informational then this should be removed,
and if it's to be BCP, then it needs to go back to IETF-LC for that
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
