Subject: [Perc] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 09:19:11 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is indeed a very valuable
set-up.

Special thanks for Suhas Nandakumar's shepherd write-up about the WG process /
consensus.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point, some non-blocking COMMENT points
(but replies would be appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

-- Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 4.3 --

== COMMENTS ==

I was about to raise a DISCUSS on this but I am trusting the security AD on
this topic. But, I really wonder why TLS 1.2 is used rather than TLS 1.3.

There is no operational consideration around the resiliency of the Key
Distributor (load balancing, fail-over, etc.). Should there be some operational
considerations ?

-- Abstract --
While I agree that this document could be informational, why does the abstract
use words like "defines" "the protocol is designed" as those words are more
normative than descriptive. Strongly suggest to rephrase the abstract.

-- Section 1 --
Knowledgeable people will understand the E2E and HBH concepts but a figure
would be welcome for beginners (really just a suggestion).

Later and in the same vein "simply forwarding packets" for me (INT AD) packets
are layer-3 and it is really unclear in the introduction what is actually
forwarded. I.e., 'packets' should be qualified, perhaps in "DTLS messages" or
using the same vocabulary of section 5.3 ?

-- Section 2 --
As usual, I am not comfortable when an informational document relies on BCP 14,
which should (IMHO) be reserved for BCP/standards track documents. Just a
comment, feel free to ignore.

-- Section 5.2 --
"which tunnel or tunnels to use to send messages for a given conference is
outside the scope of this document." is really a lot of hand waving as I wonder
how the document could be used without knowing which tunnels is to be used.

== NITS ==

There are several occurrences of "an message"... probably a replace all, which
went wrong ;-)

-- Section 1 --
s/on behalf of the endpoint/on behalf of the endpointS/ ?