Subject: [IPsec] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:37:44 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-09: 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-ipsecme-tcp-encaps/

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

Suggest expanding "IKE" and "ESP" in the Abstract on first use.

The "MUST support dynamically enabling and disabling TCP" in section 8
seems unnecessarily strong. Every other normative statement in the
document indicating the use of direct ESP or UDP encapsulation is only at
a SHOULD level. This "MUST" is the sole statement that would make a
TCP-only MOBIKE implementation noncompliant (rather than conditionally
compliant), where non-MOBIKE implementations have no such restriction. Is
that the intention?

Section 12.2 claims that retransmission is a source of issues for
delay-sensitive UDP applications. In practice, the retransmission is just
fine; it's the head-of-line blocking that occurs upon packet loss that
causes issues. Suggest stating issue in those terms.