Subject: [Dots] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-requirements-21: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 02:40:06 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dots-requirements-21: No Objection

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-dots-requirements/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my discuss.

There is still my comment about references for SIG-002:
For PLMTUD the correct reference is RFC4821, however, as commented by Joe,
RFC1191 is less reliable and therefore usually not recommended. I would
recommend to re-add a reference to RFC4821 and no reference to RFC1191 (or only
with a warning that RFC4821 is preferred due to ICMP blocking). Further, the
correct reference for datagram PLMTUD is draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud. I
would recommend to add a reference to this draft as well.

And this general comment still holds:
I understand that having wg  consensus for this document is import to proceed
the work of the group, however, I don't see the value in archiving this
document in the IETF RFC series as a stand-alone document. If the group thinks
documenting these requirements for consumption outside the group's work at a
later point in time is valuable, I would rather recommend to add the respective
requirements to the appendix of the respective protocol specs.