Subject: [core] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-stateless-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:14:03 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-stateless-06: Discuss

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-core-stateless/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[ discuss ]]

[ section 2.2.2 ]
* I agree with Ben's point about MTU.  Some text about the implications seems
  warranted.  Even just a link to 7252#4.6 might be fine (and maybe a
  skull-and-crossbones emoji [☠️] if they can be included now ;-)

* 60 minutes for address changes?  Out of curiosity, upon what was this based?
  I lack a good deal of context, but this kind of feels like the kind of
  constant that will get baked into code and come to govern some behaviour
  that later might need updating.

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

[[ nits ]]

[ section 4 ]

* s/along the/along with the/?

---

From: Klaus Hartke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 12:11:14 +0200

>   skull-and-crossbones emoji [☠️] if they can be included now ;-)

I've added the following paragraph:

    In CoAP over UDP, it is often beneficial to keep CoAP messages small
    enough to avoid IP fragmentation. The maximum practical token length
    may therefore also be influenced by the Path MTU. See Section 4.6 of
    RFC 7252 for details.

>   that later might need updating.

This was based on the desire to specify something more specific than
"must take address changes into account". I have to admit that I'm not
exactly sure how to express this in the best way.

The specific value of 60 minutes was suggested by Carsten. Maybe he
can chime in?

> * s/along the/along with the/?

Yes. Fixed.

Thank you very much!

Klaus