This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

Thank you for a well written document, and it's description of the service to be provided.


This is proposed as a "lightweight" reporting mechanism.

The method states it can be used over TCP. In this case, TCP provides the necessary congestion control, flow control and segmentation. I did not see additional transport concerns.

The method also states it can be used over UDP - which is equally recommended. However, the specification for use over UDP is incomplete and raises some transport concerns:

1. There is a recommendation to use DNS COOKIEs [RFC7873] over UDP (PS), but no statement about how to mitigate the effects when these are not used.   

2. There is no discussion of how to handle reports larger than the maximum UDP datagram payload. See RFC 8085 section 3.2.

3. I think this method can in some uses could generate a stream of reports at a rate that could be more than a few UDP datagrams per RTT, (e.g., if implement automated responses). In this case, I think method would need to provide some basic rate limiting or implement a form of congestion control.  

I understand the rate is usually "damped" by caching to one message/TTL per report, but I am unsure this is sufficient to mitigate any congestion control concerns. 

One potential remedy could be to require/recommend use over a congestion-controlled transport (such as TCP) when using an Internet path;  an alternative would be to be define appropriate mechanisms to provide at least starvation prevention for UDP services. See RFC 8085 section 3.1. 

NiT: It could be useful to expand "DS records" on first usage.