Subject: [IPsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:45:44 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-10: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my discuss. I've only checked the diff but that seems fine now :-)

Two more tiny things that I would recommend to change but can be done by the RFC editor:

OLD
"Implementations SHOULD favor using direct ESP	
  or UDP encapsulation over TCP encapsulation whenever possible."
NEW
"Implementations SHOULD use direct ESP	
  or UDP encapsulation over TCP encapsulation whenever possible."

OLD
"TCP Responders should be careful to ensure that the stream prefix
   "IKETCP" uniquely identifies incoming streams as ones that use the
   TCP encapsulation protocol, and they are not running any other
   protocols on the same listening port that could conflict with this."
NEW
"TCP Responders should be careful to ensure that the stream prefix
   "IKETCP" uniquely identifies incoming streams as ones that use the
   TCP encapsulation protocol, and MUST not run any other
   protocols on the same listening port that could conflict with this."