RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Bert,

I have spun a new version of draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq. It is available at
http://www.bonica.org/docs/draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-02.txt. Please take a
look.

If you think that this version addresses the IESG concerns, I will post send
it to the draft editor.

                                                    Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
> Behalf Of Ron Bonica
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 5:51 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt
>
>
> Bert,
>
> Sorry to have taken so long to respond. I have been away on vacation.
>
> Comments inline.....
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
> > Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:30 AM
> > To: Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
> > Subject: FW: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt
> >
> >
> > Please consider these comments and let me know if they
> > wrrant some additional text in the ID.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bert
> >
> > >*****  o Tracing Requirements for Generic Tunnels (None)
> > >            <draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt>
> > >         Token: Wijnen, Bert
> > >         Note: New revision Addresses comments.
> > >         Now on IESG agenda for April 17th
> > >         Responsible: Bert
> >
> > 1. this document looks like it might be the union of all the
> >    "i want it to do <foo>" requests. an important part of
> >    requirements documents is knowing what to not require.
> >    do they have any?
>
> This document specifies requirements for a new protocol. It specifies
> requirements, primarily, by detailing the required capabilities of
> applications that will use this protocol. The application may implement
> some subset of those capabilities. It may also implement a superset of
> the required capabilities. However, protocol designers are not required
> to consider the additional capabilities when designing the protocol.
>
> I can add some text to this effect.
>
> > 2. i am concerned about the security stuff that they've buried in
> >    their requirements. nothing definite. it seems unwieldy. but
> >    then, so many security things do...
>
> Can you be more specific? Is there any particular requirement that
> you feel cannot be implemented?
>
> > 3. section 4.1 and 4.2 seem to be worded with a particular
> >    implementation in mind. requirements documents ought not
> >    specify solutions (eg, 4.2 talks about udp, why can't i use
> >    icmp?)
>
> Section 4 provides a few protocol requirements, stated as such. In
> particular, Section 4.1 states that the new protocol will consist of
> probes and responses, and that each probe/response pair will reveal
> information regarding a network hop. (In this respect, the new protocol
> will resemble TRACEROUTE).
>
> Had I remembered to include an application requirement to support partial
> traces through broken paths, this requirement would have made much more
> sense!
> I will fix this.
>
> Section 4.2 requires that the protocol be implemented over UDP. I included
> this
> section primarily to rule out implmentations that were _not_
> acceptable. For
> example,
> ICMP should not be used, because carrying MPLS information over ICMP would
> constitute
> a layer violation. TCP should not be used, because this would
> conflict with
> the protocol's
> requirement for statelessness. Tunnel specific mechanisms should not be
> used, because
> this would conflict with the requirement for generality.
>
> This leaves UDP and IP as the two most resonable candidates.
>
> I can add some words indicating how we arrived at this decision.
>
> > 4. justification of requirements might be nice.
> >
>
> I can add a sentence or two after each requirement.
>
>
>