Subject: [Taps] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-transports-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:24:14 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-transports-12: 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-taps-transports/

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

Thanks for writing this document. I found it to be very useful summary of
the transport protocols.

* Section 3.1

Missing the Abort command. 

* Section 3.3

Why does UDP has a reference to the base IPv6 spec [RFC2460]? Is this for
the pseudo-header calculation? If so, it needs to be added to TCP as
well.

* Section 3.3.1

- Might be worthwhile adding a reference to RFC6936 as well to explain
the applicability of UDP zero checksums in IPv6. e.g.

OLD:
   IPv6 does not permit UDP datagrams with no checksum, although in
certain cases this rule may
   be relaxed [RFC6935].

NEW:

   IPv6 does not permit UDP datagrams with no checksum, although in
certain cases [RFC6936] this rule may
   be relaxed [RFC6935].

The following sentence at the end of Page 11 seems incomplete

Applications that need to provide fragmentation

* Section 3.12

The reference for ICMPv6 is wrong. It should be RFC4443 instead of
RFC4433 as stated in the draft.

* Section 3.12.1

RFC1716 has long been obsoleted by RFC1812. Is there any reason to use
the old router requirement spec?

* Section 5

ICMP can be used with multicast addresses as well.