Re: [clue] AD Review: draft-ietf-clue-protocol-13

[Simon Pietro Romano <[e-mail]>]

Hello Adam,

revising the draft is taking us way longer than expected, indeed. We hoped to submit version -14 before Prague, but we were not able to complete it on time. My plan is to finish the revision before the end of July. 

Thanks for your patience,

Simon

Inviato da iPhone

> Il giorno 10 lug 2017, alle ore 22:35, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
> 
> For my own planning, when might I expect to see a revised edition of this document?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> /a
> 
>> On 6/12/17 08:14, Simon Pietro Romano wrote:
>> Hello Adam,
>> 
>> thanks a lot for your thorough review and sorry for answering that late. I am currently abroad for a conference. Together with Roberta, we’ll work on your comments and send back our answers in the next few days.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Simon
>>                      				            _\\|//_
>>                            				   ( O-O )
>>       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>                     				Simon Pietro Romano
>>              				 Universita' di Napoli Federico II
>>                 		     Computer Engineering Department 
>> 	             Phone: [phone] -- Fax: [phone]
>>                                            e-mail: [e-mail]
>> 
>> 		    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento è l'alibi degli 
>> 		    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
>>                			                     oooO
>>        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 					                 \ (            (   )
>> 			                                  \_)          ) /
>>                                                                        (_/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 02 Jun 2017, at 02:48, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> CLUE working group --
>>> 
>>> I have completed my AD review for the CLUE protocol document. Based on my reading, I do not think it is yet ready for IETF last call.
>>> Most of my comments below are feedback that the document authors should treat as normal last call comments. The feedback that I consider to block progressing the document, in my role as AD, is explicitly marked with the prefix "BLOCKER", and these will need to be resolved in a new version of the document before progressing it further. Note that it is entirely possible that something I have marked "BLOCKER" may stem from an error on my part; so recognize that these are not demands for change, as much as a need to have things either fixed in the document or explained to me.
>>> 
>>> Title: The rule of thumb is that all but a small handful of well-known acronyms need to be expanded in titles and abstracts. I recognize that "CLUE" is a bit tortured, as acronyms go, but the title of this document is, broadly speaking, opaque. Please change it to something meaningful, such as "Protocol for Controlling Multiple Streams for Telepresence (CLUE)"
>>> 
>>> General: There are three instances of excessively long lines in the document.
>>> 
>>> General: Please number and caption the figures in this document. Also, please refer to the figure numbers when pointing to them (e.g., the first paragraph of section 6.1 should read something like: "As soon as the sub-state machine of the MP (Figure 1) is activated..."."
>>> BLOCKER: General: There are several mentions of timeouts and retry thresholds in the text and its corresponding state machines; however, the document neither defines nor cites a document as defining what these timeout and retry values are. These need to be defined and described. If the timer and retry scheme allows the two ends of the connection to have different values for timeouts and number of retries, then there need to be additional error procedures that allow the MC and MP state machines to stay in sync (if the timer/retry values can be different, it's possible for one state machine to transition to "terminated," while the other is still active, and you need messaging to clean this up). The remainder of this comment is non-blocking: Related to this, the document frequently refers to retries as "expiring" (e.g., "retry expired" on the state diagrams). That doesn't really make sense unless "retry" is the name of a timer rather than a counter; I think you mean to say "exhausted" or something similar.
>>> General: This document defines six message types, all of which have at least two names, many of which have more. It would be a lot easier to keep track of what is being described if these were kept consistent. I suggest choosing one term for each concept and sticking with it. In other words, please pick only one name from each of the following lines, and do not use any of the others:
>>> OPTIONS, options
>>> OPTIONS RESPONSE, optionsResponse
>>> ADVERTISEMENT, ADV, advertisement
>>> ADVERTISEMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, ADV ACK, ACK, NACK, ack
>>> CONFIGURE, CONF, CONF+ACK, configure
>>> CONFIGURE RESPONSE, CONF RESPONSE, configureResponse
>>> The terminology section appears to be in alphabetical order, except for "Capture Encoding" (which was presumably "Media Capture Encoding" in some earlier version). Please fix.
>>> 
>>> The definitions for "Endpoint", "MCU", and                   "Media Stream/Stream" vary from the definition given in draft-ietf-clue-framework. Is this intentional?
>>> 
>>> The first paragraph of section 4 mentions the framework and data model documents without citations. There should probably be citations to the corresponding documents.
>>> 
>>> Section 4 contains the following text:
>>> 
>>>    The CLUE protocol represents the mechanism
>>>    for the exchange of CLUE information between CLUE Participants
>>> This is sufficiently circular as to be basically meaningless. Suggest: "...for the exchange of telepresence information between..."
>>> 
>>> Section 5: The versioning scheme in here is rather perplexing. Is there some technical reason the protocol restricts major version numbers to a single digit and minor versions to a single digit? Strongly suggest that this should be expanded to allow multiple digits for both the major and minor versions.
>>> 
>>> Section 5: It should be made clear that the                   XML Schema excerpts in section 5 are non-normative. In particular, I recommend adding the following text to the end of the first paragraph of section 5: "This section includes non-normative excerpts of the schema to aid in describing it."
>>> 
>>> Section 5: If the single-digit version numbers are maintained (and, again, I strongly recommend against this), the definition of versionType appears to be wrong: it allows a major version digit of "0", which would seem to be precluded by the way versions are currently defined.
>>> 
>>> Section 5: The XML definition allows zero or more <clueId> elements to appear in a message. If more than one is allowed, the document should explain how multiple IDs are handled. If they are not, then the schema and/or text needs to prohibit having more than one.
>>> 
>>> Section 5: The description for <sequenceNr> says that a 402 will be sent in the case of an "unexpected" sequence number. This needs clarification: is this for case where a sequence number gap is detected? A repeated sequence number? A number that is too small? All of the above? At least                   describe this with the 402 error code, and point to that description from here.
>>> 
>>> Section 5: The description for <v> would benefit from the addition of "This document describes version 1.0".
>>> 
>>> Section 5.1: "The OPTIONS message is sent by the CP which is the CI to the CP which is the CR as soon as the CLUE data channel is ready." Although it's a problem in other parts of the document too, the dense use of nearly identical two-letter acronyms in here makes it quite hard to read. I had to keep consulting the definitions of those acronyms to decode this sentence (as well as several similar ones). Consider just expanding these terms (as well as "MP" and "MC") instead of using them in prose.
>>> Section 5.1 starts to wobble back and forth between referring to elements with and without angle brackets (e.g., it uses both "supportedVersions" and "<supportedVersions>"). Please pick one and stick with it.
>>> 
>>> BLOCKER: Section 5.1: The description of <supportedVersions> describes a scheme in which multiple supported versions can be listed; and, if the list is omitted, it implies that only the version described in <v> is supported. This text does not define (nor does any other text that I can find) what <v> should be set to when <supportedVersions> is used. Intuitively, it                   seems that <v> should be set to the largest minor version of the smallest major version advertised in <supportedVersions>, but that (or whatever the correct answer is) needs to be clearly spelled out.
>>> 
>>> BLOCKER: Section 5.2: "If the responseCode is of the type 2xx the response MUST also include..." -- you can't use "2xx" in a normative statement without first defining what it means. As you don't use the "#xx" format anywhere else, I suggest rephrasing: "If the <responseCode> is between 200 and 299                   inclusive, the response MUST also include..."
>>> 
>>> Sections 5.2, 5.4, 5.6: It seems really odd that the document defines a base clueMessageType that all messages derive from, but then leaves all the response types (optionsResponse, ack, configureResponse) to repeatedly and independently add <responseCode>,<responseString>, and the sequence number of the corresponding message over and over again. I would strongly suggest adding something like:
>>> 
>>>    <!-- CLUE RESPONSE TYPE -->
>>>    <xs:complexType name="clueResponseType">
>>>    <xs:complexContent>
>>>    <xs:extension base="clueMessageType">
>>>    <xs:sequence>
>>>    <xs:element name="responseCode" type="responseCodeType"/>
>>>    <xs:element name="reasonString" type="xs:string" minOccurs="0"/>
>>>    <xs:element name="requestSequenceNr" type="xs:positiveInteger"/>
>>>    <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"/>
>>>    </xs:sequence>
>>>    </xs:extension>
>>>    </xs:complexContent>
>>>    </xs:complexType>
>>> ...and then defining those three response types as being extensions of "clueResponse" instead of "clueMessage", like this:
>>>    <!-- ADV ACK MESSAGE TYPE -->
>>>    <xs:complexType name="advAcknowledgementMessageType">
>>>    <xs:complexContent>
>>>    <xs:extension base="clueResponseType">
>>>    <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
>>>    </xs:extension>
>>>    </xs:complexContent>
>>>    </xs:complexType>
>>> 
>>> Regardless of how you do this, any section that adds "responseCode" and "reasonString" needs to point to section 5.7 in its description to explain how those fields are populated and interpreted.
>>> 
>>> Section 5.5: This section allows a boolean flag in a <configure> message to acknowledge an <advertisement>. Is this intended to always be handled like a 200? Consider: if you define a 201 response code in the future, will implementations be                   unable to convey its meaning in a CONF + ACK? Given that the document defines a class of codes for success rather than a simple success flag in general, it seems that this <ack> element should carry a success response code rather than just a boolean. If you decide to keep the boolean, be very clear that it is to be treated as a 200 rather than any other potential success code; and that conveying any other kind of success requires a separate <ack> message.
>>> 
>>> Section 5.5: the final paragraph mentions the <captureEncodings> element -- it would be helpful to add something like "see [I-D.ietf-clue-datamodel] for the definition of <captureEncodings>."
>>> 
>>> BLOCKER: Section 5.7 indicates that there is a class of response codes, starting with "1", which are used to indicate "delayed or incomplete" responses. The document does not describe any protocol behavior for this class of response. The description of the meaning of this class (and the obvious parallels to HTTP and SIP) imply that some subsequent response associated with the same request will be arriving at some point in the future. If that's the intention, this document needs a *lot* more text (and corresponding adjustments to the state machines) to explain how these 100-class codes are handled. In practice, since the current version of the document does not define nor make use of 100-class codes, I suggest that the most reasonable path forward is to remove discussion of codes starting with "1" from the first paragraph of section 5.7, instead adding a paragraph immediately following it that says something like: 
>>>   This document does not define                     response codes starting with "1", and such
>>>   response codes are not allowed to appear in major version 1 of the CLUE
>>>   protocol. The range from 100 to 199 inclusive is reserved for future major
>>>   versions of the protocol to define response codes for delayed or incomplete
>>>   operations if necessary. Response codes starting with "5" through "9" are
>>>   reserved for future major versions of the protocol to define new classes of
>>>   response, and are not allowed in major version 1 of the CLUE protocol.
>>>   Response codes starting with "0" are not allowed.
>>> Section 5.7: "The response codes and strings defined for use with CLUE are as follows" - this strongly implies that the descriptions given in this table are the only ones that are allowed in CLUE <reasonString> element, and that any other messages should presumably be treated as an error. Surely that's not what you mean. Suggest rephrasing to indicate that the "Description" text can be sent in the <reasonString>, but that implementations can (and are encouraged to) include more specific descriptions of the error condition, if possible.
>>> 
>>> Section 5.7: I can't figure out how an implementation could ever send a "300" response code. If the XML syntax is incorrect, that's a 301. If the message contains an invalid value, that's a 302. And                   those are the only two conditions that are described for 300. I think you need to give "300" a bit more thought -- if you can't come up with a more generic description (e.g., "low-level request error"), you probably want to remove it.
>>> 
>>> Section 5.7: for 403, be clear which identifier is meant. Do you mean "The <clueId> used in the message is not valid..."?
>>> 
>>> Section 5.7: for 404, please be clear that you're talking about the sequence number rather than just using "number" without qualification.
>>> 
>>> Section 5.7: The description for 405 uses the acronym "MCC" without expanding it. Please expand it.
>>> 
>>> BLOCKING: The state machines in section 6 and its subsections don't have transitions for all possible messages that could arrive in a state. This can cause interop issues. Please add text that clearly                   indicates whether such messages do or do not cause a transition. (This might be as simple as "messages not shown for a state do not cause the state to change," but only if you carefully check that this is true -- for example, what should an MP state machine do do if it gets a "CONF + ACK" in the state "WAIT FOR CONF"?)
>>> 
>>> Section 6: The fifth paragraph says "CLUE                   channel" where it means "CLUE data channel."
>>> 
>>> Section 6: The eighth paragraph says:
>>> 
>>>    The CP moves from the ACTIVE state to the IDLE one when the sub-state
>>>    machines that have been activated are (both) in the relative
>>>    TERMINATED state (see sections Section 6.1 and Section 6.2).
>>> The "both" in this paragraph is confusing, since it's possible to have only one or the other machine running. Please rephrase.
>>> 
>>> Section 6.2 describes a state machine that starts in a state called "WAIT FOR ADV." This state does not appear to be timer-supervised, meaning that implementations of this state machine can stay in this state literally forever. Is that the intention?
>>> 
>>> Section 6.2 also describes the possibility of sending a <ack> and <configure> separately or as a combined message. I would have expected to see some discussion here about why implementations might choose one behavior over the other.
>>> 
>>> Section 7: The second sentence of the second paragraph needs a verb.
>>> 
>>> Section 7, paragraph 3: this claims that versions are a non-negative *integer* rather than a *digit*. As I mention above, this seems to be the right way to handle versions, but it is decidedly at odds with text elsewhere in the document and in the schema. Regardless of how you choose to treat versions, the text needs to be consistent.
>>> Section 7, final paragraph: replace "Clue" with "CLUE."
>>> 
>>> Section 8 contains a paragraph starting with "In that case, the new information..." but it's not clear which case it's referring to. Please replace "In that case" with a description of the case under consideration.
>>> 
>>> Section 8 contains the phrase "Similarly to                   what said before..." -- this is ungrammatical and needs to be rephrased.
>>> 
>>> Section 8 indicates that extensions need to indicate "the standard version of the protocol the extension refers to." Given that there is compatibility within a major version of a protocol, I think this means to say "the major standard version of the protocol that the extension refers to."
>>> 
>>> Section 8 has a paragraph starting "For that reason..." -- it's not clear what reason is being referred to here. Please clarify.
>>> 
>>> Section 8 contains schema that contains a                   <version> element. It should be clarified that this is the *protocol* version, not the *extension* version (or, if it's the extension version, that needs to be spelled out too, but I think you'll need a new namespace for that...?)
>>> 
>>> BLOCKING: Section 8.1 is an example section, which are non-normative in IETF documents. It contains 2119-style normative language, however. These normative statements need to be moved out of the example section (and probably into section 8). The remainder of this comment is non-blocking: I also find the "SHOULD" in this section to be highly perplexing. Can you explain the rationale behind requiring schema, but not requiring any description of what the schema *means?)
>>> 
>>> BLOCKING: The example in section 8.1 includes the following:
>>> 
>>>    xmlns="clue-info-extension-myVideoExtensions"
>>> I'm pretty certain that namespaces are required to be identified by URIs rather than arbitrary strings.
>>> 
>>> Section 8.1: The final paragraph also has normative language in it, although it appears to be reiterating requirements from elsewhere in the document. I suggest lowercasing "MUST" in this paragraph.
>>> 
>>> Section 8.1: The final paragraph mentions the use of <options> and <optionsResponse> to negotiate the extension. An example demonstrating this negotiation would be extremely useful.
>>> 
>>> The schema in section 9 contains:
>>> 
>>> <xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:clue-info"
>>> schemaLocation="data-model-schema-17.xsd"/>
>>> If you do not intend to bake this "-17" into the document (and I can't imagine you do), please add an RFC editor note to change it to something else upon publication.
>>> 
>>> Also, the schema in section 9 is (with rare exception) unindented. This makes it *very* hard to read. Please consider formatting it with conventional XML indentation. (This also applies to the schema excerpts earlier in the document.)
>>> Has there been any automated tool-based                   checking that the examples in section 10 to verify that they conform to the schema in section 9 (and the schemata it imports)?
>>> 
>>> Section 10.2: Please expand the acronym "MCCs" in the section title (keep in mind that this appears in the table of contents, where it needs to makes sense).
>>> 
>>> Section 10 in general: While it does consume a lot of space, I don't think that defining six rather different message types and then showing only *one* type in the examples is very illustrative of the protocol. I would *STRONGLY* suggest adding at least a response message, and ideally the example section should contain at least one example for each of the six message types.
>>> 
>>> Section 11, paragraph 4: Replace "Clue" with "CLUE."
>>> 
>>> Section 12.1 has a strange double-double quote around the URN name, and section 12.3 repeats this for the MIME type.
>>> All subsections of section 12: please update all registrant contact information to point to the IESG ([e-mail]) rather than the CLUE working group and one of the authors.
>>> 
>>> Section 12.4.1: These descriptions will appear in an IANA registry, where the phrase "in this document" will have no context and be rather nonsensical. Please rephrase.
>>> 
>>> Sections 13 through 23 should include an RFC editor note asking for removal before publication.
>>> 
>>> /a
>> 
>