Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-31: Discuss
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-hip-native-nat-traversal/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec 4.2 and 4.6.2 specify a minimum of RTO of 500ms. There’s no way you would know this, but draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider is close to IESG approval and specifies a minimum of 1 second without more information about the path. I would prefer that we change these minimums but perhaps there’s a compelling reason for 500ms? RFC 5770 is a normative downref. I couldn’t find indication the procedures in RFC 3967 or 4897 were followed to address this. One solution would be to downgrade this document to Experimental. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for an easy-to-read document. _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
