[dhcwg] Tsvart Last Call/telechat review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10
Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com> Wed, 24 January 2018 22:44 UTC
Return-Path: <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010A212D7E6; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:44:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6kwdXt_VfuHY; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22e.google.com (mail-pg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B02712D779; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id w17so3742056pgv.6; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:44:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LXc78N853S9P3wgvtTsFD8ynhu/aOqf+s89dDCvlzNs=; b=a/78YdK/2XKnHaBbcG/LEgJxYbM0125rIu9RR0sQCHTuADMCSshilgOaFZ0Ix+I6+r b1FvhBxvbDHEReJTzpCKMTA0adM22SZW8PeRFs4a6fPCysUDtW7GkxRuTvzd+8lq/qS7 2imKdWMS17a9OZa5yKFXORc8LaQizIpt9Vmab+FyWyXeS5P4nOOTUoFCY1FW0wuvca6p VDGTOz2kgjCzc8NJjQqpU+/RTeNZicSO1hqVsDCAHQQzxyh+uEh5K831pC6ym0Q7Y7pB a+TXbHRkjN03mnAYg2SsHkRimoeYcJLtTYI+OXCGNGpS9xnnz88ufxVUAWkA5mIiNKrW GmVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LXc78N853S9P3wgvtTsFD8ynhu/aOqf+s89dDCvlzNs=; b=rj+2pf4f2gPRO4wDtMLNlXOsGYm4mmPVaaq6K8rnfBmf3maTzz+Z1csLyGAHZNyUH4 gL4XG6bmnKGLeKj/LW0LwpxUydu4xqL0LF8hwggEhUJo9/E3L1pZ86ERVt84/yQFHcMT MIEWipct07RudNpIU7oLK1ArQP0MV0GKYQkTiHsORyPK45PNMADsVShskQVI6oYorah6 dDyhwaOcXQyivcveiF7nP7HAAJVgK9yaJyVCwMZrfdeIIcJiaQAyJ1p2AdoXJop7mDXJ QYq57iDCxovhHCUdP/FGWswflzrEQt2qYUDQJaDNCIyTQQsdePrB0djDyZJJbKfSOk2H 2c7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcwpEVXSLerZjgg0ishQK82Ka5TQO7u0IXoD6AcNrp9umq5KOGy nr1oLdD7lI+NjR5kjqyqq+W4IdRC8wUK9dePLi/9Nw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225wqPBOKzU9xQrCRRfvhKIuuNoG2TwuuhnvZHu3Dp/L75iecl/malv4Vhr04ialrk85k9SUbYbp88oXk0Kh960=
X-Received: by 10.98.15.27 with SMTP id x27mr14474420pfi.197.1516833846520; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:44:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.177.6 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:44:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:44:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CAP8yD=veyDjwbkHVJUjrk8Ejy+yGXoENco4fR9QEsQO2OSABwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis.all@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114617be9af08a05638d66c2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/_P_QzBNYVF24aktzLFEM-hLoVc8>
Subject: [dhcwg] Tsvart Last Call/telechat review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:44:10 -0000
Reviewer: Allison Mankin Reviewer Result: Ready with Issues I've reviewed this document as part of TSV-ART'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 for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. The draft brings together and updates multiple RFCs in order to provide a cleaned-up version of the DHCPv6 specification. It is good to see that this Bis document for DHCPv6 has done some new work on congestion control and towards packet storm controls. This is noted in items 12 of Appendix A (the summary of changes) and the sections on Rate Limiting (14.1) and Reliability (15) are basically in good shape, which is why the summary is Ready with issues. The following transport-related comments should be considered for fixing before publication 1. In Section 5, which defines that the transport is UDP, add a normative reference to BCP 145, UDP Usage Guidelines. 2. There are several small issues about retransmissions: a) there's a transmit parameters table 7.6 and it would be good for this to reference that these parameters are also controlled by the RND factor parameter and the backoffs in section 14.1 b) The REC_TIMEOUT parameter in the table in section 7.6 is in seconds, but it is described as milliseconds in section 18.3 c) does the rate-limit per device per interface (a MUST in Section 14.1) explicltly include retransmissions? This should probably be stated earlier on in the section. 3. The following addition to the spec in Section 15 seems likely to cause excess retransmissions: A client is not expected to listen for a response during the entire RT period and may turn off listening capabilities after a certain time due to power consumption saving or other reasons. Of course, a client MUST listen for a Reconfigure if it has negotiated for its use with the server. If this congestion avoidance is working, then the clients may need to retransmit mostly in cases where the round-trip time isn't very variable. So I'd be tempted to say "after a certain time" should be after the initial round-trip timeout, so as not to have too many near-misses. Not transport related, but should be fixed: In Section 6.5, don't cite both RFC 3041 and RFC 4941 (about IPv6 privacy addresses), because RFC 4941 obsoletes RFC 30410. --------------- I expect there are some risks in the space of congestion avoidance when the up-to-32 transparent relays are in place, and I'd want to see (for future reference, not requesting a change here) some consideration about this before this spec moves from PS to Full Standard.
- [dhcwg] Tsvart Last Call/telechat review of draft… Allison Mankin
- Re: [dhcwg] Tsvart Last Call/telechat review of d… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Tsvart Last Call/telechat review of d… Allison Mankin
- Re: [dhcwg] Tsvart Last Call/telechat review of d… Bernie Volz (volz)