[DMM] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 28 February 2020 17:06 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8BA73A1B45; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:06:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif@ietf.org, dmm-chairs@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org, Dapeng Liu <max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com>, max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.119.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <158290959879.22292.8550769571577161380@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:06:38 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/ENXicaPxBtyQahuoS-I1lqk6ngU>
Subject: [DMM] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:06:39 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05: 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-dmm-pmipv6-dlif/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec 3.2: "The INITIAL_BINDACK_TIMEOUT [RFC6275] SHOULD be used for configuring the retransmission timer." Use of this timeout from RFC6275 is fine. However, you should also indicate that the rest of the specified retransmission mechanism should be used as well. That means exponential backoff as well as a max number of retries. Further I think it would also be important to overall rate-limit the traffic e.g. as specified in RFC6275: "The mobile node MUST NOT send Mobility Header messages of a particular type to a particular correspondent node more than MAX_UPDATE_RATE times within a second." In addition the same mechanisms should probably be also required for any (new) message sent by the P/S-MAAR in other modes. Finally in the security consideration section I see this: "The CMD SHOULD use a pacing approach to limit this amplification risk." Which is good! But why is that a SHOULD and not a MUST? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Editorial comments/nits: 1)Sec 1: "Following this idea, in our proposal, the central anchor is..." Maybe remove "in our proposal" as this is not a proposal only anymore when published. 2) Sec 2: "The following terms used in this document are defined in the DMM Deployment Models and Architectural Considerations document [I-D.ietf-dmm-deployment-models]:" As there doesn't seem to be any plan to actually publish draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models anymore, maybe move the respective definitions into this document. 3) Sec 3: "Note that a MN MAY move across different MAARs" This should be lower case "may". 4) As section 3.6 talks mainly about implementation details, I suggest to move this section into the appendix. 5) In the appendix you always talk about "our solution". This is rather uncommon for an RFC. I recommend to chance to e.g. "the solution specified in this document". 6) Are both appendices A and B are still needed? 7) One overall editorial comment which might be too late to address: I would have found it more easy to read if you would have first introduced the new messages and then used the concrete message names in the description in section 3.
- [DMM] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
- Re: [DMM] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO