Thank you for your review comments from the GEN-ART perspective.
I think I have dealt with all your points in my responses, which are inline...
There is just one outstanding question for you concerning updating BCP4774...
At 22:23 01/07/2010, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-07-01
IETF LC End Date: 2010-07-06
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
This draft is almost ready for publication as a
proposed standard. I have a couple of procedural
questions that should be considered first, as well as a few editorial comments.
Major Issues: None.
-- RFC Editor request (immediately after ToC):
"In the RFC index, RFC3168 should be identified as an update to RFC2003.
RFC4301 should be identified as an update to RFC3168."
This seems odd. I assume the intent is that this
draft says that things from 3168 should be
applied to 2003, therefore updating 2003, etc?
If so, wouldn't it be more correct to say that
_this_ draft updates 2003 and 3168?
Quoting from the RFC Index:
Updates xxxx refers to other RFCs that this one merely updates but
does not replace); ...
Generally, only immediately succeeding
and/or preceding RFCs are indicated, not the entire history of each
related earlier or later RFC in a related series.
The consensus on the TSVWG list was that the
updates should be identified in the RFC Index as follows
2003 -> 3168 -> ecn-tunnel
3168 -> 4301 -> ecn-tunnel
In the headers of this draft we have said:
Updates: 3168, 4301
But we also noticed that the RFC Index
incorrectly omits to identify that these RFCs in
turn already update the earlier RFCs. The note to
the RFC Editor was the result of this consensus request from the TSVWG list.
[BTW, There is nonetheless text on backward
compatibility between this I-D and these early
RFCs in Section 6. And "Appendix A; Early ECN
Tunnelling RFCs" explains the interactions.]
Summary: I propose no change on this point.
-- 7, first paragraph: "The guidance below
extends RFC4774, giving additional guidance on
designing any alternate ECN semantics
that would also require alternate tunnelling semantics."
Should this draft be listed as updating 4774?
Also, you've declared this section
non-normative. What does it mean to non-normatively extend a BCP?
That's a very good question/point and I would
appreciate your advice on how to proceed. My take
was that this was an informational section of a
STDS RFC. So I did not include any RFC2119
language. But your nicely succinct question
throws this into better perspective.
* Add 'Updates 4774' to the headers?
* Scrub the line saying "This section is informative not normative." ?
* Shift the RFC2119 keywords in this section to upper-case?
Idnits gives some warnings. Please check.
There is quite a bit of text labeled to be
removed by the RFC editor. Would it make sense
to go ahead and remove them, and save the RFC
editor the work? (Although, I wonder, if parts
of that text is useful during the review
process, if they would not also be useful to readers of the RFC?)
I have an -09 revision waiting to collect
comments during last-call that already removes
the extraneous appendices and editorial notes.
These were indeed intended to save reviewers from
having to refer to a lot of other I-Ds. Once we
have converged on this thread I will post it.
4.4, first paragraph: "a complaint"
Did you mean "compliant"?
Tx - Also found the same error in an earlier para
-- 5.2, last paragraph:"as they document safe practice."
Is that _existing_ safe practice? I.e is your
intent to assert implementations already follow
these practices, safe or otherwise?
-> "existing safe practice"
-- 5.3.1, last bullet:"? the IETF Security Area
now considers copying acceptable given the
bandwidth of a 2-bit covert channel can be managed."
Can you supply a reference for that assertion?
"...Nonetheless, the latest IPsec architecture
[RFC4301] considered a bandwidth limit of 2 bits
per packet on a covert channel made it a manageable risk."
-- IANA Considerations
Why remove the IANA section? It gives us useful
historical info, even if, as. In this case, it's
empty. Also, the section should probably be numbered like the rest.
IANA have just noted that this RFC gives them
nothing to do, so I intend to leave the request
for the RFC Editor to delete this section. I
believe this is normal practice, so the absence
of an IANA section gives as much historical info as an empty IANA section.
-- 8, List Heading: "Specialist security issues:"
Did you mean "special"?
-> "Security issues in unlikely but possible scenarios:"
-- Section 9:
This section seems mostly redundant to the introduction.
I follow the rule that the conclusions should not
introduce new material, so they will naturally be
redundant. My intent was for the conclusiosn to
be a brief summary, while the introduction served
to introduce more background material.
-- Endnotes: "Editorial Comments"
Are these (other than the one explicitly labeled
to remove) going to stay in the final version?
If so, I personally find the usual IETF approach
of imbedding a note inline as an indented paragraph easier to follow.
All three are already identified as for removal,
not just one (and they are all already removed in the -09 I am preparing).
-- Appendix D (and other Appendices to be removed)
It's probably worth directing the removal label
to the RFC editor, to reduce any chance of it being overlooked.
I intend to remove Appx D & E myself (already removed from -09 in preparation).
Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design
Ietf mailing list